I lived in a country which had a similar, government built, co-operatively operated housing. With no profit to be made, therefore no incentive, government being the "builder", the waiting list for an apartment reached 40 years by the time we escaped. People would sign their newborns up hoping by the time their children are 40 years old they would their own apartment to rent-to-own, unless of course you had the right connections, then you could bribe the appropriate people and get one earlier.
I don't know if you really believe what you're saying or are just a troll, but calling absolutely every idea that tries to curtail economic rent (which is bad for free market) communism doesn't help anyone.
Free markets are defined by the rules that govern them, not their absence. That requires a government that is... yes... *in control* of business and private wealth, and setting boundaries.
Arguing that this can be done corruptly or badly isn't a blanket argument against all efforts to address the problem, any more than you can argue that we should get rid of all police because some of them over there acted badly.
Property is a prime candidate for overhauling the rules of buying and selling. Government putting restrictions on private wealth and rent-seeking behavior IS NOT COMMUNISM.
If you have to wait decades to reach the top of a bureaucrat's list, or you have to wait decades because there's no way in hell you can afford a house, you're still waiting.
No, that's wrong, under a capitalist system you can still choose a house and purchase it by getting a bank loan.
What part of "no way in hell you can afford a house" do you not understand? See, when there's no way you can afford a house, that includes options like getting a mortgage.
Under a communist system you cannot get any house for money. Under a capitalist system you only cannot get a house that you cannot afford, which sometimes means you have to either rent or move somewhere where you can afford to make a purchase (even if the money is borrowed)
The thing you're failing to understand is for millions of people, there is no "somewhere else where you can afford".
It doesn't matter if there's a house you can buy for $1M when you can't afford the mortgage on it. It is exactly the same as cannot get a house for money.
"calling absolutely every idea that tries...." perhaps you were replying to someone else, since I commented only on the idea in the original post, which proposed government funded co-op housing in which everyone owns shares, enabling people to move from place to place while retaining their shares of the (I presume) country wide non-profit co-op (if not country wide, how are you going to move from L.A. to N.Y.C. and retain your ownership). While my personal experience was with a government funded coop where
Communism (Score:-1, Troll)
I lived in a country which had a similar, government built, co-operatively operated housing. With no profit to be made, therefore no incentive, government being the "builder", the waiting list for an apartment reached 40 years by the time we escaped. People would sign their newborns up hoping by the time their children are 40 years old they would their own apartment to rent-to-own, unless of course you had the right connections, then you could bribe the appropriate people and get one earlier.
So, perhaps tho
Re:Communism (Score:5, Insightful)
Free markets are defined by the rules that govern them, not their absence. That requires a government that is... yes... *in control* of business and private wealth, and setting boundaries.
Arguing that this can be done corruptly or badly isn't a blanket argument against all efforts to address the problem, any more than you can argue that we should get rid of all police because some of them over there acted badly.
Property is a prime candidate for overhauling the rules of buying and selling. Government putting restrictions on private wealth and rent-seeking behavior IS NOT COMMUNISM.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to wait decades to reach the top of a bureaucrat's list, or you have to wait decades because there's no way in hell you can afford a house, you're still waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's wrong, under a capitalist system you can still choose a house and purchase it by getting a bank loan.
What part of "no way in hell you can afford a house" do you not understand? See, when there's no way you can afford a house, that includes options like getting a mortgage.
Re: (Score:2)
Under a communist system you cannot get any house for money. Under a capitalist system you only cannot get a house that you cannot afford, which sometimes means you have to either rent or move somewhere where you can afford to make a purchase (even if the money is borrowed)
The thing you're failing to understand is for millions of people, there is no "somewhere else where you can afford".
It doesn't matter if there's a house you can buy for $1M when you can't afford the mortgage on it. It is exactly the same as cannot get a house for money.
Re: (Score:3)
"calling absolutely every idea that tries...." perhaps you were replying to someone else, since I commented only on the idea in the original post, which proposed government funded co-op housing in which everyone owns shares, enabling people to move from place to place while retaining their shares of the (I presume) country wide non-profit co-op (if not country wide, how are you going to move from L.A. to N.Y.C. and retain your ownership). While my personal experience was with a government funded coop where
Re: (Score:2)
This is absolutely wrong, but I agree with you.
Renting is not capitalistic, fundamentally. And particularly with all the laws and regulations that the govermetn has imposed on it.