1192
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
1192 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
35066 readers
455 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Daily reminder that unregulated capitalism hurts all of us.
Daily reminder that capitalism hurts all of us.
Capitalism isn't about free markets, it's about private property and profit extraction.
Agreed!
Nice to -for once- see someone else who recognizes that capitalism in itself isn't a problem as long as it is very well regulated and doesn't immediately go "Communism is the answer!"
I'm sorry but your definition of capitalism is incorrect.
Yeah, it's something that capitalism as currently is (mostly in the US) allows, but that isn't the basis of what capitalism is.
I fully agree with you that capitalism needs very strick limits to not be abusive, but it's still a hundred times better than communism, something that too many people here propose as the ~~final~~ great solution
Capitalism in itself is very much the problem. There is no positive aspect to the extraction of surplus value ("profit"), hoarding the vast majority of it into the hands of the wealthiest "private" property owners.
Free markets don't have to be capitalist.
I always look at people who jump to "Communism is the answer" just have issues with properly articulating what they feel and just jump to a reactionary catch all comment.
I myself don't like a lot of flaws with the core tenants of capitalism, so I often find myself saying reactionary shit like "capitalism bad" sometimes too.
I think this goes for a lot of discussion on economic models. There's a lot of nuisance to it, and I think so many folks range somewhere between knowing nothing and knowing enough to be dangerous, but lack the energy, time, patience, or skill to really get it across online.
Often we see people posting about stuff so frequently because of a frustration with the current system, so unless it's like a bad faith argument I mostly just tune it out, or go "hell yeah" in my little monkey brain depending on if it's something I agree with slightly.
It's not reactionary to say that capitalism is bad. Capitalism is literally terrible. Not commerce, capitalism. Buying and selling things isn't wrong, but extracting and consolidating surplus labor from the working class is.
No, you're right. I'm saying it's reactionary to write only "Capitalism is bad", and nothing else. Mostly because in terms of a discussion it makes it hard to keep talking about why capitalism is bad with such a broad statement. This is just the opinion of one dude on the internet who thinks of comments in a very specific way, and I get that others agree probably fine with broad comments of that style.
What worries me about it is that since for various reasons a lot of people just don't have it in them to spare any thought on the question of how the economy works, they buy into rhetoric about economics being a fake conspiracy where supply and demand isn't real and actually all economic problems are trivial and only require putting the bad guys in their place. The frustration is justified but stuff like rent control just doesn't work and you can see why it doesn't work if you're willing to honestly think about it.
You say "Rent Control" doesn't work, but having seen locations with rent control, and living in a place without it I fundamentally disagree with that statement.
In any economic model, housing is a basic need for humans. While rent control isn't a solution, I don't think it's ever intended to be one. It is a stop gap, or a step implemented in a larger plan. It's basically regulations for combating price fixing.
If you live in a place fraught with renoviction, the act of using a renovation as an excuse to evict people and charge more for the same thing, then the person who has been forced back into the market does not have to become homeless.
To another point, I don't think rent control would prevent development of new housing either, as landlords aren't the only folks who buy properties, even though it's almost financially impossible to buy a house in certain inflated markets these days no matter who you are.
The rhetoric I see around it paints it as a solution, and there are people who say with full sincerity that supply and demand is capitalist propaganda.
This whole dynamic is only surface level. The excuse doesn't matter; if the whole market can get those prices, it's because of the number/means of people seeking housing vs the supply. It will happen with or without an excuse to smooth things over. There are plenty of very run-down places in high demand low supply areas that cost huge amounts without any such aesthetic justification.
It demonstrably has prevented and does prevent the development of new housing, among other market distortions, and afaik this is one of the few things economists broadly agree on. To your point, maybe it would be possible that over time, eventually, all rental apartments would be converted into condos etc. as a market response to rent control. But given the demand specifically for rentals (for which there is then artificially reduced incentive to meet), and the difficulty you mention for most people actually buying a home outright, it's easy to see why in practice there will be an extended, possibly indefinite, period where housing supply will be suppressed by the policy. One reason it could end up indefinite is that homeowners as a voting class have an incentive to protect the value of their properties, and that often means passing regulations that in practice constrain housing supply. When most voters are renters, this is less of a problem.
The way I see it, looking at housing markets as being "inflated", as if the prices were the result of some trick of greedly landlords, is completely wrong and missing the bigger picture. Real estate is a wealth asset, a store of wealth, and all of those are skyrocketing in dollar terms beyond official measures of inflation, as part of a process of wealth being transferred away from the majority of the population and the value/negotiating power of labor declining. If people only look at their personal situations and false ideas of what prices "should" be and what is subjectively "fair", they miss this bigger picture and overlook solutions that could actually work.
Which, in the case of housing, is more housing.
Laziness or not giving a damn is a choice