[B0ycey]

@B0ycey

I have the page open on another tab:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/what ... t-control/

OK thanks. Yeah you're right then. This post only makes the argument from the investors POV. Again down to profits. The argument from this article states that by capping the rent, landlords will sell their stock because they won't profit from it. I question that when the rent is beyond the median but I guess there is some truth to it. What you can instead do is not rely on the private sector for housing. In other words create a social housing programs run by the government that would fix this issue. The social housing program would be a not for profit scheme and will use the rent they gain to build more homes. We have social housing projects in the UK, but we also had social housing programs in the 60s. It did work better than what we see today actually so on this point, housing especially is better not to be left to the free market.

[Julian658]

I know it is a pain but can you post that article again? I only ask because affordable housing can be achieved by simply making supply for housing greater than demand for housing. Government intervention and Social housing projects that actually address demand and built in those areas would solve this problem. I don't see how that would make things worse.

A homeless person that is a drug addict with mental illness would also require a maid to clean the home as well someone to do the laundry, pay the bills, buy groceries, etc. The problem goes beyond just providing a home. Who is going to maintain the home?

[B0ycey]

A homeless person that is a drug addict with mental illness would also require a maid to clean the home as well someone to do the laundry, pay the bills, buy groceries, etc. The problem goes beyond just providing a home. Who is going to maintain the home?

Whose going to maintain the home? The home renter of course.

If a guy trashes his home he should be evicted. But I would say even drug users don't go out of the way to trash their homes given they live there. It might be very untidy, but not trashed.

I don't know what you guys in America know about housing associations (or social housing project pre Thatcher), but you cannot just trash your home and not be evicted. They were set up to make living affordable for those on low income. And it worked far better than what we have now, high demand and no homes resulting in high rent.

If it helps Julian, I don't expect anyone to be given a maid. I just want everyone in society to benefit from society.

[Pants-of-dog]

The way that society deals with mental illness and drug abuse is also very revealing about class differences:

The rich can pay for treatment and care. The poor get the police called on them.

[wat0n]

This is why it is a good idea to quote from your source. Let us look at the part where it mentions the first paper:

...
Autor, Palmer, and Pathak (2014) (APP), studies the impact of this unexpected change and find that newly decontrolled properties’ market values increased by 45 percent. In addition to these direct effects of rent decontrol, APP find removing rent control has substantial indirect effects on neighboring properties, boosting their values too. Post-decontrol price appreciation was significantly greater at properties that had a larger fraction of formerly controlled neighbors: residential properties at the 75th percentile of rent control exposure gained approximately 13 percent more in property value following decontrol than did properties at the 25th percentile of exposure. This differential appreciation of properties in rent control–intensive locations was equally pronounced among decontrolled and never-controlled units, suggesting that the effect of rent control had been to reduce the whole neighborhood’s desirability.

This seems to be saying that once rent controls disappear, the landlords could make a lot more money by charging more rent.

Correct, and then they have incentives to build in the long run. You could quote from the San Francisco paper.

Please quote the relevant text. Thanks.

Just like you refuse when I ask you to quote relevant text from other sources, I will refuse the request. You can read the abstract if you want.

This has nothing to do with your previous comment.

But if you want to discuss US perception of socialism, we can. Right now, Sanders is considered a socialist. And yet, his beliefs are considered as normal in capitalist countries.

And this skewed perception of what socialism is, and the longstanding demonizing of socialism, has led to a situation where the US does not have these mainstream policies that developed countries have.

It has quite a bit to do with this thread, which is all about perceptions of socialism among American youth.

Sanders would not be as "normal" in capitalist countries (he's clearly in the left) but he's no socialist, in the Soviet sense for sure. You'd also have to be specific about what those "mainstream policies" are but I agree that there are some policies done in other developed countries the US should consider implementing (at least have a single, coherent healthcare system instead of the 3-4 separate systems that coexist with each other).

@B0ycey if the government wants to participate in the market by building public housing that's great but it's not the kind of government intervention I have in mind when speaking of government attempts to intervene housing markets. Although there is also some tragic history with public housing in places like Chicago and NYC, both of which featured rent-controlled public housing along with serious financial distress for both cities at the time - which led to a disaster for tenants.

[Pants-of-dog]

Correct, and then they have incentives to build in the long run.

So then your source does not support the claim that rent control increases prices.

You could quote from the San Francisco paper.

Just like you refuse when I ask you to quote relevant text from other sources, I will refuse the request. You can read the abstract if you want.

It has quite a bit to do with this thread, which is all about perceptions of socialism among American youth.

Sanders would not be as "normal" in capitalist countries (he's clearly in the left) but he's no socialist, in the Soviet sense for sure. You'd also have to be specific about what those "mainstream policies" are.

Things like public health care, paid parental leave, subsidized PSE, and a defence budget that is not exorbitant.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey if the government wants to participate in the market by building public housing that's great but it's not the kind of government intervention I have in mind when speaking of government attempts to intervene housing markets. Although there are also some tragic history with public housing in places like Chicago and NYC, both of which featured rent-controlled public housing along with serious financial distress for both cities at the time - which led to a disaster for tenants.

Sure, but that just means that the government is trying to interfere with a contradiction of Capitalism and as such rent control isn't a factor in Socialism at all and instead they are basically trying to retain the current system mainframe without addressing wage inequality WITHIN CAPITALISM. If we are to discuss pure Socialism, not any political affiliation but just the economics of pure Socialism, there would be no private ownership of housing. So profits in housing stock isn't even a factor to manipulate the controlling of rent. It would also be up to the government to build the required housing stock needed and not up for the free market to build them for it. And that isn't even taking into account that whilst landowner profit greatly with high demand, there is no incentive for them to build more homes into their profile in any case. Basically what I am saying is Socialism programs and even Socialism itself would address and fix high rents better than Capitalism ever could.

[wat0n]

So then your source does not support the claim that rent control increases prices.

In the long run it does.

Things like public health care, paid parental leave, subsidized PSE, and a defence budget that is not exorbitant.

The US already has public healthcare. Half of the healthcare spending in the US is from the government.

The US indeed has no paid parental leave. That's also one thing it could add.

What's PSE?

The US spends 3.4% of GDP on defense, it's higher than most developed countries but it's not exorbitant.

Sure, but that just means that the government is trying to interfere with a contradiction of Capitalism and as such rent control isn't a factor in Socialism at all and instead they are basically trying to retain the current system mainframe without addressing wage inequality WITHIN CAPITALISM. If we are to discuss pure Socialism, not any political affiliation but just the economics of pure Socialism, there would be no private ownership of housing. So profits in housing stock isn't even a factor to manipulate the controlling of rent. It would also be up to the government to build the required housing stock needed and not up for the free market to build them for it. And that isn't even taking into account that whilst landowner profit greatly with high demand, there is no incentive for them to build more homes into their profile in any case. Basically what I am saying is Socialism programs and even Socialism itself would address and fix high rents better than Capitalism ever could.

Right, and then you'd get all the trouble with maintenance and construction itself socialist countries had. There are no silver bullets here, you have to pay the price in one way or another when it comes to housing.

For instance a pure free market approach would lead to low quality buildings unable to withstand earthquakes (hence why earthquake prone jurisdictions have building codes to that effect), it would have congestion issues (high density buildings, basically), could lead to all sorts of problems with historical buildings (some historically relevant buildings in the center of a major city could be torn down to build more housing in a real estate hotspot) and so on.

[B0ycey]

Right, and then you'd get all the trouble with maintenance and construction itself socialist countries had. There are no silver bullets here, you have to pay the price in one way or another when it comes to housing.

For instance a pure free market approach would lead to low quality buildings unable to withstand earthquakes (hence why earthquake prone jurisdictions have building codes to that effect), it would have congestion issues (high density buildings, basically), could lead to all sorts of problems with historical buildings (some historically relevant buildings in the center of a major city could be torn down to build more housing in a real estate hotspot) and so on.

Why would Socialism housing be any less quality than Capitalism housing? The whole point of Capitalism is to maximise profits and that means driving down quality!

If you want to know why the West has high quality buildings and actually high quality products, it all stems down to GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. That is to say the government make it law for construction to not skimp on quality. Pure Socialism is all about government controlling the market rather than the invisible hand. So that means that if America was to become Pure Socialism (never happen), they won't just throw out regulation or R&D. They will actually improve upon it because that is what it would have to do.

[wat0n]

Why would Socialism housing be any less quality than Capitalism housing? The whole point of Capitalism is to maximise profits and that means driving down quality!

If you want to know why the West has high quality buildings and actually high quality products, it all stems down to GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. That is to say the government make it law for construction to not skimp on quality. Pure Socialism is all about government controlling the market rather than the invisible hand. So that means that if America was to become Pure Socialism (never happen), they won't just throw out regulation or R&D. They will actually improve upon it because that is what it would have to do.

That's nice in theory but things didn't work in practice where they were tried.

In practice, you would be forced to wait for several years before being able to move to whatever place the government has assigned to you, a place you'd have little input on whether you actually want to live at or not. In some cases, you'd move there after being internally deported depending on your ethnicity.

The government would also skimp on quality because it's a subjective, hard to enforce criterion that isn't fully quantifiable. So the central planner could set up a target and the agents who would build the unit would do so at the lowest cost possible since, well, they're using government funds after all.

Using markets would not have these problems. If the place sucks, you go elsewhere or at least get to rent it at a low price ("low" relative to the rest of the overall rents prevailing at the time).

[B0ycey]

That's nice in theory but things didn't work in practice where they were tried.

In practice, you would be forced to wait for several years before being able to move to whatever place the government has assigned to you, a place you'd have little input on whether you actually want to live at or not. In some cases, you'd move there after being internally deported depending on your ethnicity.

The government would also skimp on quality because it's a subjective, hard to enforce criterion that isn't fully quantifiable. So the central planner could set up a target and the agents who would build the unit would do so at the lowest cost possible since, well, they're using government funds after all.

Using markets would not have these problems. If the place sucks, you go elsewhere or at least get to rent it at a low price ("low" relative to the rest of the overall rents prevailing at the time).

I suppose once you associate Socialism to a dystopia you cannot stop them referring to the SU. The Soviet buildings were regulated to how it was at the time and just like how the West built homes with Asbestos we really should just accept that today things would be different given that we have been educated by R&D even if we adopted Socialism. Homes would never be less quality then they are now if Say America became Socialist I can assure you of that.

As for being designated a house, Socialism doesn't have to be Brave New World. I would say you apply to the area you want to live in just like it is now rather than just being a cog. Socialism doesn't need to be like what it has been or what people think it is. It is after all an economic model. But just as Capitalist states aren't the same as each other today - and some are even authoritarian, the notion Socialism has to be like the SU or Cuba or NK or whoever you dislike the most is a misnomer too.

As for just moving in Capitalism if the apartment is shit, well I am going to respond the same way you did. Nice in theory doesn't work in practice. We have just been talking about low income workers not AFFORDING homes now. So how do you think they can just move for a better quality house when we live in a high demand low supply housing economy?

[Pants-of-dog]

In the long run it does.

Not according to anything I read in that article.

The US already has public healthcare. Half of the healthcare spending in the US is from the government.

The US indeed has no paid parental leave. That's also one thing it could add.

What's PSE?

The US spends 3.4% of GDP on defense, it's higher than most developed countries but it's not exorbitant.

This nitpicking at details ignores my point.

What do you think of my point?

Right, and then you'd get all the trouble with maintenance and construction itself socialist countries had. There are no silver bullets here, you have to pay the price in one way or another when it comes to housing.

As someone who worked in public housing, I find governments have the best incentive when it comes to reducing costs for the user.

Private companies selling condos or houses in developments want to sell the unit quickly and cheaply, while reducing construction costs. This means cut corners and hidden maintenance costs. This is because the builder is also the first owner, but is not the end user or long term owner.

Government buildings, on the other hand, tend to be owned for a long time by the government and the same people who pay for construction also pay for maintenance. For them, paying a higher initial cost for quality construction is worth it because it reduces maintenance costs over the long term, as well as reducing things like sick days for workers in the buildings.

This is actually one of the reasons why I hate working on private housing projects: the client specifically asks for construction details that are cheaper to build and will deteriorate the building faster as well as making the building less healthy.

[wat0n]

Not according to anything I read in that article.

While expansion of rent control did prevent some displacement among tenants living in San Francisco in 1994, the landlords of these properties responded to mitigate their rental losses in a number of ways. In practice, landlords have a few possible ways of removing tenants. First, landlords could move into the property themselves, known as move-in eviction. Second, the Ellis Act allows landlords to evict tenants if they intend to remove the property from the rental market, for instance, in order to convert the units to condos. Finally, landlords are legally allowed to offer their tenants monetary compensation for leaving. In practice, these transfer payments from landlords are common and can be quite large.

DMQ find that rent-controlled buildings were 8 percentage points more likely to convert to a condo than buildings in the control group. Consistent with these findings, they find that rent control led to a 15 percentage point decline in the number of renters living in treated buildings and a 25 percentage point reduction in the number of renters living in rent-controlled units, relative to 1994 levels. This large reduction in rental housing supply was driven by converting existing structures to owner-occupied condominium housing and by replacing existing structures with new construction.

This 15 percentage point reduction in the rental supply of small multi-family housing likely led to rent increases in the long-run, consistent with standard economic theory. In this sense, rent control operated as a transfer between the future renters of San Francisco (who would pay these higher rents due to lower supply) to the renters living in San Francisco in 1994 (who benefited directly from lower rents). Furthermore, since many of the existing rental properties were converted to higher-end, owner-occupied condominium housing and new construction rentals, the passage of rent control ultimately led to a housing stock that caters to higher income individuals. DMQ find that this high-end housing, developed in response to rent control, attracted residents with at least 18 percent higher income. Taking all of these points together, it appears rent control has actually contributed to the gentrification of San Francisco, the exact opposite of the policy’s intended goal. Indeed, by simultaneously bringing in higher income residents and preventing displacement of minorities, rent control has contributed to widening income inequality of the city.

It may seem surprising that the expansion of rent control in San Francisco led to an upgraded housing stock, catering to high-income tastes, while the removal of rent control in Cambridge also lead to upgrading and value appreciation. To reconcile these effects, it is useful to think about which types of landlords would respond to a rent control expansion versus a rent control removal. In the case of rent control expansion, some landlords will choose to recoup some of their losses by converting to condo or redeveloping their building to exempt it from rent control. However, other landlords may choose to accept the rent control regulation, and no longer perform maintenance on the building and allow it to decay. In the rent control expansion case, one would see an increase in condo conversions and upgrades, driven by the landlords that chose to respond in this way. However, when rent control is removed, the landlords who own the rent controlled buildings are the ones who didn’t choose to convert to condo or redevelop in response to the initial passage of rent control. Indeed, one would expect this subset of landlords to choose to upgrade and invest in their properties once the rent control regulation is removed.

Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood. These results highlight that forcing landlords to provide insurance to tenants against rent increases can ultimately be counterproductive. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords’ incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire. A point of future research would be to design an optimal social insurance program to insure renters against large rent increases.

This nitpicking at details ignores my point.

What do you think of my point?

Nitpicking? Come on, I'm correcting you on the actual facts. It's a fact that the US has a public healthcare system.

I do agree with some of your points, though. But there are many nuances to consider, especially in healthcare. There's a fair amount of countries with mixed public and private healthcare systems (such as Germany and all those with a Bismarck model), but which overall work better than the US.

The issue with the US is that you have 4 systems coexisting at once: You have Medicare and Medicaid (2 different forms of national health insurance), you have the VA system (a NHS-style system for war veterans), you have a Bismarckian system (for the other insured workers) and you have something akin to free market too (for people who are willing to pay and those uninsured uncovered by Medicaid). And, on top of that, healthcare itself seems to be really expensive, since the US is usually the first adopter of new treatments. And thus, you end up with a healthcare spending that is equivalent to over 5 times the total spending on defense (half and half between private and public).

Honestly, if the US just picked one of the first 3 it would already be a massive improvement. The Bismarckian system (i.e. like Germany's) seems like the most logical and acceptable choice, and I don't think anyone would claim Germany's healthcare sucks. But even a NHS-style system would be an improvement in many ways, as long as a private option exists for people unwilling to wait to be attended for free exists.

As someone who worked in public housing, I find governments have the best incentive when it comes to reducing costs for the user.

Private companies selling condos or houses in developments want to sell the unit quickly and cheaply, while reducing construction costs. This means cut corners and hidden maintenance costs. This is because the builder is also the first owner, but is not the end user or long term owner.

Government buildings, on the other hand, tend to be owned for a long time by the government and the same people who pay for construction also pay for maintenance. For them, paying a higher initial cost for quality construction is worth it because it reduces maintenance costs over the long term, as well as reducing things like sick days for workers in the buildings.

This is actually one of the reasons why I hate working on private housing projects: the client specifically asks for construction details that are cheaper to build and will deteriorate the building faster as well as making the building less healthy.

It depends on the government I guess. You could take the NYC disaster as an example of a public housing system that sucks in terms of maintenance and quality:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/02/nycha-rep ... 8-billion/

Also, how does the assignment of people to units work at your location in Canada? How do they deal with an excess demand?

I suppose once you associate Socialism to a dystopia you cannot stop them referring to the SU. The Soviet buildings were regulated to how it was at the time and just like how the West built homes with Asbestos we really should just accept that today things would be different given that we have been educated by R&D even if we adopted Socialism. Homes would never be less quality then they are now if Say America became Socialist I can assure you of that.

Indeed, Western homes also used to be worse. Particularly the post-war designs, which were actually inspired on Soviet ones IIRC.

What does asbestos have to do with waiting for years to be relocated? Mind you, that also happens in some European cities today, in the capitalist West, when the municipality manages a big chunk of the housing stock. Just imagine that, but applied to everyone, everwhere.

As for being designated a house, Socialism doesn't have to be Brave New World. I would say you apply to the area you want to live in just like it is now rather than just being a cog. Socialism doesn't need to be like what it has been or what people think it is. It is after all an economic model. But just as Capitalist states aren't the same as each other today - and some are even authoritarian, the notion Socialism has to be like the SU or Cuba or NK or whoever you dislike the most is a misnomer too.

On the other hand, that's exactly how real socialism works. Real capitalism isn't a libertarian utopia either.

As for just moving in Capitalism if the apartment is shit, well I am going to respond the same way you did. Nice in theory doesn't work in practice. We have just been talking about low income workers not AFFORDING homes now. So how do you think they can just move for a better quality house when we live in a high demand low supply housing economy? :?:

Correct, but often that is due to city planning and zoning. Still, I actually agree with you on that: Capitalism isn't a panacea either. Those do not exist when it comes to housing because it's a fraught subject when it comes to local/municipal politics since someone often loses no matter what you do. For instance, if you go on a public building spree, current homeowners will lose out too. If you densify, they lose too. If you integrate, they can lose as well. But if you don't, people who can't afford homes lose.

Markets, however, can and are useful to get rid of some literally unsolvable problems in this regard. After all, who determines what a good "quality" housing is but the guy who actually lives there? Then, why wouldn't you let that person decide, through the purse, how to respond to "low" quality housing, whatever that may be for the person?

[B0ycey]

@wat0n, I don't really know how to respond to that given you haven't really addressed why Socialism would make bad homes, just that historically they did and that Capitalism seems to fail us on this issue too? I would say Russian homes weren't really badly constructed compared to Western homes at the time just they were concrete blocks without aesthetics in any case. I am not an architect but yes I would say that 60s Britain has similar style high-rise blocks to the SU and it might have something to do with Art Deco movement. But even so, why would you think a Socialist government would actively deregulate homes and make them poor quality given this is a safety concern? I suppose I can only go by what occurred in 50s/60s Britain to explain how Socialism would solve the housing crisis along with the current inflated rent price on private sector housing. That is build build build until you have a supply that equals demand. Remember, the 60s UK housing boom wasn't really to do with politics or whatnot, it was because people needed homes after the war and prefabs were temporary. Very much like today.

[wat0n]

@wat0n, I don't really know how to respond to that given you haven't really addressed why Socialism would make bad homes, just that historically they did and that Capitalism seems to fail us on this issue too? I would say Russian homes weren't really badly constructed compared to Western homes at the time just they were concrete blocks without aesthetics in any case. I am not an architect but yes I would say that 60s Britain has similar style high-rise blocks to the SU and it might have something to do with Art Deco movement. But even so, why would you think a Socialist government would actively deregulate homes and make them poor quality given this is a safety concern? I suppose I can only go by what occurred in 50s/60s Britain to explain how Socialism would solve the housing crisis along with the current inflated rent price on private sector housing. That is build build build until you have a supply that equals demand. Remember, the 60s UK housing boom wasn't really to do with politics or whatnot, it was because people needed homes after the war and prefabs were temporary. Very much like today.

Because of the agency problem. There are some performance measures that cannot be easily defined and also observed/monitored accurately by the central planner, even if he's benevolent. Home quality is one of those, particularly since it depends on many things (not just the quality of the construction materials but also its size, room distribution, location, even views, etc).

It goes beyond housing, too, here's an interesting real example that actually did happen in the USSR, with regards to monitoring:

http://abandonedfootnotes.blogspot.com/ ... t.html?m=1

A similar issue happens in China, where provinces often lie to the central government as means to hit its planned targets. And so the government will often adjust the fake figures it gets to have something more realistic.

A market based economy can also have these problems but they are moderated by the fact that if you produce crap, most people will refuse to buy from you sooner or later.

[B0ycey]

Because of the agency problem. There are some performance measures that cannot be easily defined and also observed/monitored accurately by the central planner, even if he's benevolent. Home quality is one of those, particularly since it depends on many things (not just the quality of the construction materials but also its size, room distribution, location, even views, etc).

It goes beyond housing, too, here's an interesting real example that actually did happen in the USSR, with regards to monitoring:

http://abandonedfootnotes.blogspot.com/ ... t.html?m=1

A similar issue happens in China, where provinces often lie to the central government as means to hit its planned targets. And so the government will often adjust the fake figures it gets to have something more realistic.

A market based economy can also have these problems but they are moderated by the fact that if you produce crap, most people will refuse to buy from you sooner or later.

Within a market of high demand low supply you will find people settle for crap actually. They will also settle for mold which is bad for your health. You will surprised what I have learnt about what goes on with landlords on the black market and what people will suffer just to have a roof over their head. This isn't a joke. Capitalism is failing massively when it comes to housing. I cannot talk for America, but I can talk for the UK. Rent shot up once Thatcher stopped building social housing. We are now starting building social housing again but are TWO DECADES BEHIND.

As for China, they have some high quality homes, so that is a bad example. Any regulator caught lying is going to prison I can assure you. And home quality expectors? Like in Capitalism, in Socialism you will be accountable for singing off poor quality homes. I really don't see why you think things will be different under a different economic model given they are not. I think the problem is you are just like Julian. You associate Socialism with American propaganda and don't understand that it doesn't have to function like the SU at all.

[Julian658]

Whose going to maintain the home? The home renter of course.

If a guy trashes his home he should be evicted. But I would say even drug users don't go out of the way to trash their homes given they live there. It might be very untidy, but not trashed.

Evicting a former homeless person that is a dug addict and mentally ill is not a plan. People like that need need a care taker. It is easy to say let's build homes for the homeless, it is just a platitude.

You should pend some time in public housing Bro.

[B0ycey]

Evicting a former homeless person that is a dug addict and mentally ill is not a plan. People like that need need a care taker. It is easy to say let's build homes for the homeless, it is just a platitude.

You should pend some time in public housing Bro.

Then the guy goes to a mental institute. I am just telling you how it is. You trash your home for no reason at all you get evicted even under Socialism. You won't get a bloody maid. But given we have a homeless crisis going on today within Capitalism I am surprised you care so much for the drug addicts on the streets today. Can I take it you will be homing them in your house? Besides, the people that you described as being on drugs with sever mental issues that they will destroy their own home for no reason at all are so small in numbers you have to be clutching at straws to even bring this up.

[Tainari88]

Biden is making this into a reality. He announced 1.9 trillion and then another 2 trillion to bring the US and its infrastructure in line with the most advanced European nations.

Somehow they did not have any money for these big government spending programs. They have money for bailing out Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo and etc or this or that. But money for infrastructure and education and public health and so on? NO. They waited for a damn pandemic and massive problems before pulling out the bucks to get things working again. It goes to show it is ALL lack of political will.

Hating on socialism but when they realize it is spending on the nation's needs or it goes under? Magically the bucks show up. Get the damn Republicans out of the power seats....and the problems improve. Get the damn conservative element out of the power situation forever because they SUCK.

[wat0n]

Within a market of high demand low supply you will find people settle for crap actually. They will also settle for mold which is bad for your health. You will surprised what I have learnt about what goes on with landlords on the black market and what people will suffer just to have a roof over their head. This isn't a joke. Capitalism is failing massively when it comes to housing. I cannot talk for America, but I can talk for the UK. Rent shot up once Thatcher stopped building social housing. We are now starting building social housing again but are TWO DECADES BEHIND.

I don't find it all that surprising, and you said it - it's a black market, which is by definition not regulated. Maybe trying to formalize it would actually be better for all sides?

And as you also mention, you are building social housing. But this is within a capitalist system, not a centrally planned one. And that means people actually do get more options to choose from.

As for China, they have some high quality homes, so that is a bad example. Any regulator caught lying is going to prison I can assure you. And home quality expectors? Like in Capitalism, in Socialism you will be accountable for singing off poor quality homes. I really don't see why you think things will be different under a different economic model given they are not. I think the problem is you are just like Julian. You associate Socialism with American propaganda and don't understand that it doesn't have to function like the SU at all.

The people lying in Uzbekistan during the USSR were executed. But they still did it, why do you think that is?

No, I don't associate socialism with American propaganda. I'd actually say you do, since American Republicans are the ones who claim any sort of government intervention is socialism.