Anyone who says "X is what we need to do" over and over again will be part of a weird cult eventually and that's not a bad thing regardless of whether X is desirable.
-
-
I don't. It doesn't seem to involve the same types of distributional inefficiencies as the political economic grip of the landed gentry entailed historically. But I could be wrong.
-
I'd be interested to hear more of the case against doing this, because it sure does seem like our rent crisis is acute and is inflaming class tensions.
-
Well, I support (1) vastly increased public expenditures towards housing and (2) smart use of regs to incentivize construction of affordable housing in urban core. I think we need to tilt effective property rights over land towards working class folk.
-
The historical failure of collective farming, and the wild success of small-plot independent farming after land reform, along with America's own experience with social housing, make me think (by analogy) that housing redistribution would be better than social housing.
-
Collective farming was a disaster. Public housing is alive and well in many countries (Sweden). However, I didn't necessarily mean publicly owned housing. I said public expenditures toward housing (i.e, construction of affordable units, subsidies, etc.)
-
Oh. In that case, yes. Though I think we also need to address our excess cost problem...
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I think the best would be government building lots of housing and giving ownership to low-wealth families. Public housing being (cheap) rentals does not tackle the intergenerational wealth disparity issue.
-
I think this is maybe the first time we've agreed
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.