• OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m basing this off of real world data taken from socialist projects. Rent in the USSR was 5 percent of income for example.

    They do not have 500 percent margins because capitalism is incredibly inefficient and they’re only one small actor making money from the situation in a broader ecosystem of developers, construction companies, etc.

    • trailing9@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you go for standardized housing with an abundance of construction sites then you also get your 5% rent within capitalism.

      The problem is not the landlords but the voters and buyers. The landlords will offer 5% housing if the demand is there, together with construction sites.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        but the voters

        The US is objectively an oligarchy based on many longitudinal studies. The problem is the oligarchy, which contains property owners.

        • trailing9@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That doesn’t make landlords the origin of high rents.

          If people want less rent, it doesn’t help to oppose landlords. All it does is reducing the number of participants which worsens the situation.

          Renters can decide elections. Unionize and negotiate with the parties how many construction sites they will create. Then vote accordingly. Then rent will go down.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That doesn’t make landlords the origin of high rents.

            No, it has nothing to do with how landlords are parasites, it is just explaining that it isnt the voters fault that parasitism is allowed.

            If people want less rent, it doesn’t help to oppose landlords.

            It helps to oppose the landlord class and abolish the idea of rent.

            Renters can decide elections.

            The US is empirically not a democracy. Is this going in one ear and out the other?

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is the voters fault.

              Voters are responsible for politics.

              Even if they are manipulated, it’s still their fault. Like drunk driving.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are empirically incorrect, studies show the US is an oligarchy. Bribery is literally legal in the US as long as the right procedures are followed.

                • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes. As long as you don’t believe in Santa Claus, who is there to make a change?

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I would maybe research historical examples where land reform has worked instead of continuing to pester me.

            • trailing9@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Landlords are not parasites. If you have enough competition then profits will go down until it’s barely rewarding to manage property, which somebody has to do.

              Housing just costs so much becsuse of zoning laws and lack of public transport.

              Unless you pull of a revolution, competing landlords are key if you want rentable housing.

              But you want to abolish the idea of rent. What will happen? People have to own their housing units. This requires credit. People who don’t get credit now, where will they live?

              Of course you can establish Socialism. But you don’t believe that voters can change politics.

              What’s the most possible change?

              I think making the housing market competitive is possible. But it’s still difficult because there needs to be a decision about how to handle collapsing housing prices and the defaulting on most mortgages.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Landlords are not parasites.

                The father of classical economics and the father of Marxian economics are in agreement about landlords being parasites but you have been blessed with divine knowledge that says they aren’t. Please, impart your wisdom on the masses. /s

                Seriously, imagine the ego to think you know better than literally the people behind the two major competing economic analysis systems.

                But you want to abolish the idea of rent. What will happen?

                Literally look into how much nicer housing is in places that succeeded at communist land reform. Talk to Vietnamese and Cuban people about how housing is handled. Plenty of them speak English if you’re monolingual. (Not vietnamese american or cuban American, people who actually live in the current systems)

                • trailing9@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You are appealing to authority. They are right in the sense that the owning class will try to maintain their position. Now, what do you want to do? Stage a revolution without weapons from the means of production?

                  Hegel for sure is proud to know that those two reached the end of philosophy.

                  I don’t question that communism and Socialism can create better housing. My point is that as long as you are in capitalism, you have to play by capitalist rules. This means you should increase competition. It’s not the fault of landlords that there is not enough opportunity to build affordable housing.

                  Blaming landlords is counter-productive because renters don’t feel the need to build the power to influence the next election.

                  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You are appealing to authority.

                    Yes, and it is an appropriate appeal. It is the equivalent of pointing at physicists while arguing with a flat earthen.

                    I don’t question that communism and Socialism can create better housing. My point is that as long as you are in capitalism, you have to play by capitalist rules.

                    Okay, so stop doing capitalism. You just said that socialism produces better outcomes.

                    Blaming landlords is counter-productive because renters don’t feel the need to build the power to influence the next election.

                    That won’t do anything. Build tenants unions and then find where your landlord lives and have a pleasant conversation with them about collective bargaining and what collective bargaining is the historical alternative to, at the minimum.