• girlfreddy@mastodon.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    @flossdaily @return2ozma

    Who told you rent control backfired? Cause that’s a lie. It was just never adopted as widely as it should have been, and rich owners always have the ear of lawmakers … the same can’t be said of poor/working poor people.

      • trias10@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capitalist/free market* economists.

        Rent control works just fine in a more socialist model, especially when the government is a prime builder of housing without seeking profit, as almost every European country was during the 50s-70s. It’s only when government gets out of house building and everything gets privatisated and for-profit that rent control fails.

          • trias10@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Depends on your definition of “success.” Countries such as Holland, France, Canada, Germany, and China all have caps on the amount by which a landlord can increase rent in any given year, usually by law it’s less than 5%, or indexed to inflation (but with 5% as the max). These laws are incredibly popular with renters and have been around for decades.

            Berlin implemented a hard rent freeze in 2020 which was extremely popular with renters, but not with landlords, naturally.

            However, rent control isn’t just a hard price cap like back during the war, there are many nuanced aspects, see here for information: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/23/berlin-rent-cap-defeated-landlords-empty

          • trias10@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I unfortunately can’t read that article as it’s paywalled, but looking at the link, it’s an Opinion piece, so not factual reporting. It’s also from Bloomberg, one of the most pro-capitalist publications out there, second only to The Economist in its championing of all things pro globalist and pro capitalist.

            The main stream media which is all very pro capitalist (as they’re all owned by billionaire oligarchs) has been shitting on rent control for decades.

            Here’s a more nuanced article on the matter which doesn’t come from such a pro-capitalist, classical economic outlook: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/23/berlin-rent-cap-defeated-landlords-empty

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That article is literally about how rent shot up because of rent control policies.

              Also it is an opinion article and written as if rent control is a good thing.

              • trias10@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Rent didn’t shoot up, how could it, the whole point of the law was it was frozen.

                I think you’re missing the forest for the trees in this entire conversation: rent has been skyrocketing everywhere, in every G8 country, for the last 20 years. Especially in places like London, NYC, LA, Seattle, Paris, Toronto, Bay Area, etc. Hell, even in Salt Lake City where I used to live my rent went from £1816/mon to £2600/mon for the same flat, in just 2 years. And none of those cities have classic rent control (NYC has a few places which have it, but overall it doesn’t). So clearly with a free market, pure capitalist approach, rents have only been skyrocketing. Same thing for housing to buy, have you tried buying a house lately?

                So to claim that rent control or rent freezes lead to higher rentals or less supply is wrong, because rents are going up in a free market too, and supply is already at an all time low (hence the prices shooting up).

                So you’re fucked in either situation. The real problem is there just isn’t enough supply of shelter for people, and that’s because if you leave it to the free market, there’s no incentive to build affordable housing with no profit. Hence, because shelter is something required by citizens, government should be building it even at a huge loss. Just like government provides fire brigade and military at a financial loss, because people need these things. You don’t leave essential services to the private market because it may not be profitable to do them, for example, rural communities have shite internet, why? because it’s not profitable to dig and lay fibre optic cable into some rural hinterland for just a few hundred customers. So in Norway, the government steps in lays that fiber optic at a financial loss because it wants its citizens to have a better life. Same for housing. If the private sector isn’t doing it, the government should be. Just like in the 60s.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Rent goes up because we have insufficient housing construction, and we have insufficient going construction becuause zoning laws prevent housing construction. Literally none of the places you bring up have anything approaching a free market wrt housing construction.

                  I am aware that the government can encourage building and it should do so. Vote locally to repeal zoning laws.

                  If government says the private sector cannot do something, then yeah you’ll see few or no businesses doing that thing.

                  • trias10@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Zoning is only a small part of the problem. Even if you zoned a bunch of new land today, if you let the private, free market have its course, then what do you think will be built on that land? Highly unaffordable luxury flats/houses, because that is what leads to the highest profit margins for the private sectors builders. And those flats will be bought up by investors or wealthy individuals to create more unaffordable rent.

                    That’s the core issue, individual private sector interests are not aligned to be altruistic interests for the good of society. They want to maximise profit, nothing more. Hence, you need someone willing to build houses and sell them at a loss, so average people can afford housing again. Only the government can sell for a loss and remain in business.

                    Ergo, you can zone all the land you want, but if you only let private sector builders have it, then you’ll just get more and more unaffordable properties built, chasing rich foreign investors, tech millionaires, or pension funds.

                    This is the core issue with Thatcherism/deregulation/privatisation. An individual company’s profit margins don’t always align with the good of society, but society needs essential services (water, sewage, electricity, food, housing, defense). These things need to be provided to all citizens, urban and rural, but doing so doesn’t always guarantee a profit, so you can’t just leave it to the private sector only.

          • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The US has lots of socialized losses but privatized profits. To call it a capitalist economy is a gross oversimplification which glosses over the fact that no corporation is actually competing in a free market at this point.

          • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Semi. It’s got bits and pieces of all systems, which is a hint that the “-ism” powering any country’s economy doesn’t have as big an impact as its leaders.

            Unfortunately, capitalism tends to reward corruption, it’s much easier and profitable to be corrupt than to do the right thing™.

            Libraries are socialist. Otherwise every person in a fully capitalist system would be expected to buy their personal copy of a book.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Libraries are not socialist. Socialism is not, in fact, when the government does things.

              • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Thank you, boring and incorrect pedant.

                It truly depends on the definition of socialism. Is it socialist anytime a service is provided by the govt? Or solely when public policy limits the abilities of capital?

                You and I disagree, and that’s ok cuz I don’t care.

            • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What you’re referring to is called a “mixed economy” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

              And you’re right - there are scales with capitalism and socialism weighing against each other in basically every economy. Finland, Norway, France are examples where it’s tipped a bit more in favour of the “socialism” side. But the US has plenty of elements of socialism, from housing coops in the Bronx, to utility coops in the midwest (that helped pave the way for the electrification of rural America), to credit unions, to welfare policies, to the Alaska social wealth fund, and I could keep going.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Finland and Norway have among the highest percentage of private investment in the world, to the extent that investment is the leading economic driver in Nordic countries.

                They are not socialist countries.

      • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The author of that article is Megan McArdle. A quick look at her other articles:

        • An article that attempts to shift blame away from media execs and onto consumers, in response to the writers/actors’ protests
        • “Higher minimum wages may increase homelessness” (literal article title)
        • Says we shouldn’t expect to keep taxing wealthy people
        • Wants to reduce medicaid but conveniently doesn’t mention the amount of death poor people will experience as a result of that, using the same austerity justifications we’ve heard in Europe already (that turned out to be bullshit)

        I’m sure she has no right wing economics bias lol

      • girlfreddy@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        @flossdaily

        Putting all your faith in economists whose sole purpose is to back the current capitalist shitshow that rapes the land and kills the poor is a strange take.

        But you do you I guess.