In other news

How are ceiling fans getting damaged?

How do you think large apartment buildings should be owned and run?

You get maintenance and repairs, you put a lot less money upfront, you dont have to deal with property taxes or home owners associations, there’s no long-term commitment to a specific place so if you want to move you can do so at anytime, you often get utilities, furniture, lawncare thrown in…

I’m not sure how it is in Britain though maybe everyone just sucks.

You make a very convincing case for getting rid of the private rentals market completely, as people don't look after other people's property anywhere near as well as they do their own.

How would you attain your goal ?
Price control always end up with lack of supply -> waiting period , often long .

Free market enable prices to go up to prevent a lack of supply .

I never heard a strategy where you can provide both , low prices with never ending supply .
I’m curious on how u propose to reach this solution ?
Disregarding the fact the need of very rough labour laws for both labour and contractors.

Build council houses? Create new town etc. Public transport connecting everywhere.

Wasn't a utopia but it used to work pretty well.

Think about how dumb the average person is, and then consider half must be dumber than that.

That's the only explanation I can provide, since I have no idea what these people kept doing to destroy so many ceiling fixtures. I'm quite tall and can admit to having accidentally lifted a broom or something into a spinning fan my fair share of times, but in the last 20 years I've only had to replace one ceiling fan in my own home, and it was already wobbly when we bought the place.

jalfrezi might like to dream about a world where there are no landlords and people are responsible for their own state-supplied housing, but he might change his tune after a few years of dealing with other peoples' bullshit. I have tens of thousands of photos from our work for private banks and Fannie/Freddie during the height of the foreclosure crisis that will show you that people are not automatically going to take better care of something just because it's "theirs" and not a rental.

We're able to keep our properties up to a certain standard and have entirely avoided squatters like lozen is referring to because of our screening criteria. I'm dealing mostly with young professionals, or kids that are brand new at life but come with extremely well-qualified co-signers.

I say again,

I used to work with a lot different social class.
You are obviously correct.

Hence if people would be reasonably smart, the need of very leftish polices wouldn’t be needed .

Today many policies are made to prevent people to learn it seem .
They want the government to take all personal responsibility away from them and yet have all the liberties and goodies the world can offer .
A nice paradoxal view.

Where did I say this?

Who’s gonna pay ?

Keynes.

Who do you think paid in the 50s and 60s?

Keynes doesn’t mean free .

I thought the experience of 2021-2023 was a learned experience for everyone .

Is this ideological or is it based off you thinking it’s a better system? If shown that this system was worse than allowing there to be private landlords, would you still want to abolish such relations?

I’m open to building more state housing, but I’m not convinced that abolishing the landlord/renter relationship is going to be economically beneficial.

There have always been private landlords here, but they used to be somewhat grubby characters not making a huge amount of money because rents were cheap, but they did provide housing for people "in between" or for people first moving out of home. Sort of the anti-Insoos.

That was before the buy to let market developed and people were encouraged to take cheap mortgages out on second plus properties, taking those properties out of the pool of properties for sale and pushing sale prices up, forcing more people into the rental market and so on, all while council houses were being bought by their tenants for the first time, removing those from the pool of rentals.4

It was a complex shift of property ownership and the net effect was bad, exacerbated by the 90s boom which saw the well off buying second properties for their own occasional use and as an investment.

eg My first property cost £58,000 in 1990 and when I sold it for something bigger ten years later it was worth £115,000. The place I bought in 2000 was £195,000 and though I sold it (and regretted it!) by 2010 it was worth £500,000. The property market is completely ****ed.

There was quite a dramatic reduction im debt as a % of gdp while you built those houses back then. Ie, you were spending much for almost anything else. The NHS didn't have to serve a legion of elders, there were almost no pensions and so on

Btw Keynes told you , you can do stuff on deficit when there are significant parts of the economy underutilized, and when inflation is low or negative. Neither is true today. But that never stopped a leftist to distort and warp keynes stellar thought to justify unlimited deficit expenses even when inflation was meaningful or when the economy was already running at full capacity.

If you had 20% of your builders unoccupied and inflation was 1% then YES, it would be smart to get into public debt to build houses. But that's not reality. You don't have tens of thousands of people in construction playing sudoku waiting for their employers to call them, nor low inflation

So we are told, yet there's always money for bank bailouts, expensive wars, weapons and furloughed workers' wages during covid.

Bank stocks were wiped out with disasters for stock holders. And wars did crowd out other expenses. So it's not like there was "extra" money for them: politicians chose to do that INSTEAD of other stuff. The extra uncovered covid deficit disaster brought us in the current predicament: runaway public finances with insane deficits even if it looks like everything would need more financing to function properly. It was a complete disaster, it impoverished the masses dramatically, and it mortally wounded public finances.

Now what would you cut to finance public housing with the needed amounts, which are tens of billions of pound per year for 5 years as a really bare minimum to make a difference (unfortunately the gvmnt is disastrously inefficient at everything it does, so don't expect to spend less than 1 million per unit at the end of everything).

No, that's wrong as usual and the £860Bn of QE (~six months of GDP) agrees with me.

QE isn't deficit omg, it actually reduces the deficit because it decreases gvmnt interest expenses

Nevertheless it's money that can't be created again which is why there's a ceiling to QE.

If we hadn't "had to" bail out the banks other things could have been done via QE. If we'd locked down earlier, harder and shorter we'd have saved a lot of money there too.

QE is inflationary. So you can't do it now or you are ****ed with inflation. But when inflation is low or even better when you are playing with deflation as a possibility, QE is a sort of freeroll where you just gain by doing it , and you get back on track.

Same as actual keynesian deficits are a freeroll: if you DO have a lot of unoccupied people and capital, it works insanely well.

But both QE working in the proper conditions and keynesian deficits working in the proper conditions don't mean that you can do deficit randomly in the current conditions: with inflation over target and very few skilled people being unoccupied (if any).

China locked super hard super early. Result was... they had to lockdown again and again and again and at some point even they gave up. Now if actually cementing doors in condos isn't strict enough for you as a lockdown i don't know what to say.

But it's ******ed to think you should have lockded down even more.

Ofc you should never have locked anything. And if more elders had died that would today mean a lot more money available to do public housing among other things.

You suicided your economy to keep a few elders alive a little longer so that you could pay their pensions and healthcare for longer. Good job, boomers won. Everyone else suffers as a result.

What would you have done? Let it rip with zero safety measures?

In case the numbers don't already tell the story--we don't need much input from over Italy way on economies 😀

I definitely agree that overhousing is a problem. Even having a 3 story house and only going into 1-2 rooms can create overhousing issues.