Fixing America

[acbytesla]

There are lots of problems that need to be addressed. There always are and there always will be. But I'm convinced addressing one of them will go a long ways in addressing many of them. That problem is affordable housing.

We can get people off the street if they can afford rent. Inexpensive housing will make American employees less expensive to hire. It will make it more desirable for companies to manufacture in the US than abroad.

I know, easier said than done. But it's a lot easier than people think. We need to start by eliminating zoning laws that restrict mult-mamily building and MIL apartments and increase public transit. Millions of homes and apartments must be added to the market.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Do you mean "fixing" the USA like they "fix" tomcats?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The fundamental problem is America's access to a huge military, making it always possible to avoid dealing with problems at home by trying to fix problems abroad - militarily.
As a result, Americans have started to think that problems at home need to be solved the way problems abroad are- hence the militarization of the police, protection of powerful individuals aligned with the State in disregard for the rule of law, and the constant propaganda war to keep the population fighting each other or minorities rather than those in power: it's called The Colonial Boomerang.

True change is not possible while Americans can be told that they don't have to change, because they have the power to change the world to make it serve their needs.

 

[acbytesla]

The fundamental problem is America's access to a huge military, making it always possible to avoid dealing with problems at home by trying to fix problems abroad - militarily.
As a result, Americans have started to think that problems at home need to be solved the way problems abroad are- hence the militarization of the police, protection of powerful individuals aligned with the State in disregard for the rule of law, and the constant propaganda war to keep the population fighting each other or minorities rather than those in power: it's called The Colonial Boomerang.

True change is not possible while Americans can be told that they don't have to change, because they have the power to change the world to make it serve their needs.

I'm not sure I buy that. But I do agree that the US has a bloated military budget. We have many systemic issues that make change difficult.

 

[arthwollipot]

To really "fix" America you'd have to start with the Constitution, and that's a super hard sell.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Do you mean "fixing" the USA like they "fix" tomcats?

That would eliminate the housing shortage.

 

[sackett]

To really "fix" America you'd have to start with the Constitution, and that's a super hard sell.

There's a topic for a separate thread, for sure. But you'll need to bring a train load of specifics.

 

[Tero]

Beyond voting, people do not get involved much in poltics. They just assume big money controls everyhting and we can just sort of ignore it all and live out our simple lives between elections.

That thinking will never get us proper public transporatation. Therefore all the homes and cities we build will all be dicatated by cars.

I noted recently in Denver CO and St Louis MO they have strange little stip malls appearing in suburbia. They have restaurants and stores that sell useless crap, home goods and maybe hobby stuff. Yet they try to build it somehow like a European shopping district, where you walk in the outdoor mall. Yet, there are cars there, and they clutter the streets first and then the smallish lots scattered around the edges, where the people in the evening fill up the lots and have dinner and maybe some entertainmnet, a movie theater somewhere in one corner of the development.

No bus will take you there.

All built around the car. I went to Omaha to hear Tim Walz in a little concert arena there, with all those stores around it, but on two sides of a busy road. People would move cars to shop the both sides. Ringo appeared in the arena a month after Walz.

 

[sackett]

As for getting more housing built, hell that's easy: make it worth somebody's while, as in profitable. Tax breaks, subsidies, cheap loans, all the usual carrots. Zoning difficulties? Make 'em go away with federal development grants to the cities that need help (they all do, just ask them).

The US's gargantuan wealth is there to be tapped. When the faucet is opened even just a little, you'll be astounded by all the thirsty mouths crowding under it -- not liberal or progressive or socialist mouths, but rock-ribbed Rpublican bidnessman mouths. And why not?

(No no, General, you can't have any more 12th generation fighters now! Stop clinging! Later, we'll let you have a lovely new tank. Won't that be nice?)

 

[ponderingturtle]

There are lots of problems that need to be addressed. There always are and there always will be. But I'm convinced addressing one of them will go a long ways in addressing many of them. That problem is affordable housing.

We can get people off the street if they can afford rent. Inexpensive housing will make American employees less expensive to hire. It will make it more desirable for companies to manufacture in the US than abroad.

I know, easier said than done. But it's a lot easier than people think. We need to start by eliminating zoning laws that restrict mult-mamily building and MIL apartments and increase public transit. Millions of homes and apartments must be added to the market.

This kind of socialism will never fly in America, how does any of this benefit the rich and holders of capital in general. Remember as a capitalistic country capital is the king of all and this is better than socialism or communism.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

As for getting more housing built, hell that's easy: make it worth somebody's while, as in profitable. Tax breaks, subsidies, cheap loans, all the usual carrots. Zoning difficulties? Make 'em go away with federal development grants to the cities that need help (they all do, just ask them).

The US's gargantuan wealth is there to be tapped. When the faucet is opened even just a little, you'll be astounded by all the thirsty mouths crowding under it -- not liberal or progressive or socialist mouths, but rock-ribbed Rpublican bidnessman mouths. And why not?

(No no, General, you can't have any more 12th generation fighters now! Stop clinging! Later, we'll let you have a lovely new tank. Won't that be nice?)

no, that is the worst way to do it. That way, you are just shovelling money at property developers, as has been the case for decades. It's how both Trump and Trump senior made most of their money.

make massive public housing projects, and rent at the very low end of the market - this kills tow bords with one stone: provide housing and force the other landlords to lower their rents to stay in business.
Plenty of European cities have figures this out.
It's cheaper than subsidies, creates wealth and a steady income for the city, makes it attractive or people and companies. In every sector, there should be a state-run alternative to the private sector.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This kind of socialism will never fly in America, how does any of this benefit the rich and holders of capital in general. Remember as a capitalistic country capital is the king of all and this is better than socialism or communism.

One of the things that infuriates me most about current capitalism isn't the greed of the super-wealthy, it's their short-sightedness. If they weren't so impatient for maximum gains ASAP now now now now, they could end up with more while letting things operate at a reasonable pace in a reasonable way. Forcing a company to operate recklessly and slash their workforce or lower quality to get a single quarter return of 20% then go under is idiotic when they could let the company operate sensibly for the long term and return 5% this quarter, and next, and next, and next, and go on for years and years. They'd get more in the long run if they could just be patient! But these people are chopping down young fruit trees for the firewood instead of letting them grow into orchards that would bear much more valuable crops of fruit for hundreds of years. Impatience is a kind of stupidity, and in a smart would people would never be impatient with investment.

 

[ponderingturtle]

no, that is the worst way to do it. That way, you are just shovelling money at property developers, as has been the case for decades. It's how both Trump and Trump senior made most of their money.

make massive public housing projects, and rent at the very low end of the market - this kills tow bords with one stone: provide housing and force the other landlords to lower their rents to stay in business.
Plenty of European cities have figures this out.
It's cheaper than subsidies, creates wealth and a steady income for the city, makes it attractive or people and companies. In every sector, there should be a state-run alternative to the private sector.

Look that would undermine the value of too many peoples houses and be politically unacceptable. Boomers would rather their grandkids be homeless than lose value on their homes.

 

[Trausti]

no, that is the worst way to do it. That way, you are just shovelling money at property developers, as has been the case for decades. It's how both Trump and Trump senior made most of their money.

Who is shoving money at property developers? If it's a willing market, then this is certainly the way to go. Government just makes things worse.

make massive public housing projects,

Please, no.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Look that would undermine the value of too many peoples houses and be politically unacceptable. Boomers would rather their grandkids be homeless than lose value on their homes.

Ugh, and that's another thing that irritates me: that so many people use their homes as investments. They shouldn't be: homes should be for living in, ideally large chunks of/the majority of a person's wealth wouldn't be their home. Sadly that isn't the case. And yes, I know it's not everybody's fault, most people can't help but use their home as an investment because they don't have the means to do otherwise. But it's still a bad thing IMO. It causes people to make foolish and sometimes downright evil policy choices because they have to protect the assumed dollar value of their house.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Please, no.

and now post all the cases where private real estate developers have built overpriced broken deathtraps -
no?

guess you weren't serious, then.

 

[Trausti]

and now post all the cases where private real estate developers have built overpriced broken deathtraps -
no?

guess you weren't serious, then.

If they actually did that, then they likely faced legal consequences. When the government does it, no one is ever held responsible. Incentives, my dude.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

no, that is the worst way to do it. That way, you are just shovelling money at property developers, as has been the case for decades. It's how both Trump and Trump senior made most of their money.

make massive public housing projects, and rent at the very low end of the market - this kills tow bords with one stone: provide housing and force the other landlords to lower their rents to stay in business.
Plenty of European cities have figures this out.
It's cheaper than subsidies, creates wealth and a steady income for the city, makes it attractive or people and companies. In every sector, there should be a state-run alternative to the private sector.

There's another thing you need to do to ensure the highlighted emulates the best European developments, make sure they are mixed income developments. If they're only available for the poor in society they will be neglected and become unliveable. But with a mixture of social classes in them they'll have a good chance of succeeding.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

a powerful way to establish Public Housing is to make it inheritable

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

One of the things that infuriates me most about current capitalism isn't the greed of the super-wealthy, it's their short-sightedness. If they weren't so impatient for maximum gains ASAP now now now now, they could end up with more while letting things operate at a reasonable pace in a reasonable way. Forcing a company to operate recklessly and slash their workforce or lower quality to get a single quarter return of 20% then go under is idiotic when they could let the company operate sensibly for the long term and return 5% this quarter, and next, and next, and next, and go on for years and years. They'd get more in the long run if they could just be patient! But these people are chopping down young fruit trees for the firewood instead of letting them grow into orchards that would bear much more valuable crops of fruit for hundreds of years. Impatience is a kind of stupidity, and in a smart would people would never be impatient with investment.

That's the inevitable end state for any capitalist society. Short-termism rules in any system that is set up only to satisfy the owners of capital.