The following question got me thinking.
Quote from: downer on January 10, 2022, 08:36:11 AM
The Republicans have Fascists among them. Yet people don't say that makes them unelectable.
It's fine for a party to include a wide range of opinion.
I am curious as to why in the US, democratic socialism is more scary than fascism.
Someone said that "wokeness" is a term people on the right use for "anything I don't like". I would argue that "fascist" is a term that people on the left use for "anything I don't like"
From Wikipedia:
Quote
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
The capital hill rioters and so on are definitely not in favour of government control.
By contrast:
Quote
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.
That's much more like it.
Contrasting the US to Russia, for example, shows the latter has much more history of invasion of neighbouring countries (Ukraine, etc.), while the US hasn't even invaded Canada in over 200 years. In fact, the US has a history of isolationism. Trump chose to LEAVE Afghanistan. (The US does have a history of
covert operations and so on to
assert influence in other countries, but that's exactly why it doesn't fit the "fascist" label.)
The right doesn't typically increase police budgets; as a rule, they favour cutting spending in pretty much every area possible. Again, this is more like libertarianism than fascism.
So, to answer the original question, people don't really fear fascism because it's not the way the right leans; if you want to warn people about something they think is
realistic, talk about libertarianism. In other words, don't warn them about a powerful right-wing government, warn them about a minimal government where society becomes more like the wild west.
Or maybe socialism is considered the term the right uses for anything they don't like. Socialism and fascism have something in common, don't they? Full-on fascism is rare (Nazi Germany) but the status quo is you can say something is fascist even when there is a trace of that quality, or movement in that direction, aspiration. Anti-racism as defined by Ibram X. Kendi certainly qualifies.
The far right it is hyper nationalistic and authoritarian, which are characteristics of fascism, but doesn't have a clear ideology in terms of its view of what the state should do or not do in the economy: Sometimes they hate regulation, like Obamacare and vaccine mandates, sometimes they love it like tariffs and crackdowns on tech companies.
The capital rioters don't seem to have had much of a collective ideology, except that they wanted Trump and they were brainwashed idiots (and that's being generous). They appeared perfectly happy to have a government controlled by Trump.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2022, 08:19:35 AM
The far right it is hyper nationalistic and authoritarian,
Nationalistic I'll grant you, but authoritarian? Can you give an example?
Quote
which are characteristics of fascism, but doesn't have a clear ideology in terms of its view of what the state should do or not do in the economy: Sometimes they hate regulation, like Obamacare and vaccine mandates, sometimes they love it like tariffs and crackdowns on tech companies.
Tariffs are often popular with both sides. (There are news pieces in Canadian media after every American election on whether it's "better" or "worse" for Canada. Generally, Republicans tend to more for free trade, and Democrats are more protectionist. Trump was actually unusual in that.)
Crackdowns on tech companies are popular across the board.
Quote
The capital rioters don't seem to have had much of a collective ideology, except that they wanted Trump and they were brainwashed idiots (and that's being generous). They appeared perfectly happy to have a government controlled by Trump.
I'm not sure how much Trump "controlled" the government; his chaotic style had very little direction or sustained momentum. Even "build the wall" didn't really make much change to the status quo, from anything I've seen. And that was one of his biggest "goals".
No group is monolithic, so take this addition to the conversation for what it is worth, but if the far right were truly libertarian, Women's reproductive rights wouldn't be an issue for them. Certainly there are far right libertarians who are absolutely in favor of these rights, but many (not all) on the far right pick and choose the rights they claim as liberties to align with White Kristian Nationalism.
The two meet in the middle.
The distinction is meaningless.
M.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 12, 2022, 08:31:12 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2022, 08:19:35 AM
The far right it is hyper nationalistic and authoritarian,
Nationalistic I'll grant you, but authoritarian? Can you give an example?
Quote
which are characteristics of fascism, but doesn't have a clear ideology in terms of its view of what the state should do or not do in the economy: Sometimes they hate regulation, like Obamacare and vaccine mandates, sometimes they love it like tariffs and crackdowns on tech companies.
Tariffs are often popular with both sides. (There are news pieces in Canadian media after every American election on whether it's "better" or "worse" for Canada. Generally, Republicans tend to more for free trade, and Democrats are more protectionist. Trump was actually unusual in that.)
Crackdowns on tech companies are popular across the board.
Quote
The capital rioters don't seem to have had much of a collective ideology, except that they wanted Trump and they were brainwashed idiots (and that's being generous). They appeared perfectly happy to have a government controlled by Trump.
I'm not sure how much Trump "controlled" the government; his chaotic style had very little direction or sustained momentum. Even "build the wall" didn't really make much change to the status quo, from anything I've seen. And that was one of his biggest "goals".
Example of authoritarianism: Are you serious? How about supporting Trump/Republican attacks on US democracy and efforts to overturn the results of a free and fair election.
Tariffs popular on both sides: Sure, but this thread is not about whether people on the left like tariffs too, it is about whether the far right is libertarian. Libertarians support free trade, the far right does not. There is an interesting conversation to be had about why the right has turned against free trade, but they have. (Same basic point is true about tech company regulations.)
Trump in control: Trump is an incompetent fool and his administration was a chaotic mess, but once again this thread is not about that. It is about whether the far right is libertarian or fascist, and their cult-like worship of Trump is not in line with libertarianism.
The US right's roots are in libertarianism, sure, but they've strayed far, far from those roots.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 12, 2022, 06:16:10 AM
Someone said that "wokeness" is a term people on the right use for "anything I don't like". I would argue that "fascist" is a term that people on the left use for "anything I don't like"
I don't think that's right at all. 'Neo-liberal' has become a mostly empty signifier of that sort--or was, for a while in the mid-aughts--but 'fascist' still seems to be pretty narrowly applied. And if you consider the definitions proferred by scholars like Umberto Eco (for the classic view) or Jason Stanley (for the modern view), today's Republicans are well on their way. In particular, the cult of personality, hypernationalism, enemy "other", conspiracy-mongering, desire to destroy their political opponents, and total corporatism resonate hard.
Quote
The capital hill rioters and so on are definitely not in favour of government control.
They're not in favour of
Democrat government control. They
want(ed) Republican government control.
QuoteContrasting the US to Russia, for example, shows the latter has much more history of invasion of neighbouring countries (Ukraine, etc.), while the US hasn't even invaded Canada in over 200 years. In fact, the US has a history of isolationism. Trump chose to LEAVE Afghanistan. (The US does have a history of covert operations and so on to assert influence in other countries, but that's exactly why it doesn't fit the "fascist" label.)
The US has a history of isolationism, sure, but it hasn't been isolationist since its entry into the second world war (nor was it particularly isolationist for a while before it was, either). Those regime change operations to prevent the spread of communism/prop up friendly dictators are precisely the
opposite of isolationism.
As for literal invasions in the relatively recent past, you might consider the Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961), Vietnam and Cambodia (1960s and 1970s), the civil war in the Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), the occupation of Haiti (1994-5), and Panama (1989-90), to say nothing of Iraq 1, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan.
Quote
The right doesn't typically increase police budgets; as a rule, they favour cutting spending in pretty much every area possible. Again, this is more like libertarianism than fascism.
I dunno what work 'as a rule' is doing for you here, but it looks suspicious to me. The right certainly increases
military budgets, and since 2001 has been instrumental in handing down military gear to police departments. The right likes to say it wants to cut spending everywhere, but in practice that's just not what happens. At the federal level, taxes are cut for a privileged few, and the spending that's reduced is on social services and not much else. Services are privatized, and the cost of those services becomes much greater.
Quote
So, to answer the original question, people don't really fear fascism because it's not the way the right leans; if you want to warn people about something they think is realistic, talk about libertarianism. In other words, don't warn them about a powerful right-wing government, warn them about a minimal government where society becomes more like the wild west.
What has people on the US left worried is the permanent entrenchment of minority right power. This is evident on the supreme court, in gerrymandered districts, and at the state level, too. If the left can't assume power even when it wins an outright majority, and if it can't govern even when it
does manage to assume power, that's a serious problem. And it's a problem with right-wing government being too powerful, not too minimalist.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2022, 08:44:49 AM
Example of authoritarianism: Are you serious? How about supporting Trump/Republican attacks on US democracy and efforts to overturn the results of a free and fair election.
But that's the point: There wasn't any sort of
military support; it was totally a "wild west" style of riot. The police, National guard, etc.
opposed the capital riots. And Trump's personal "call" to governors to "find more votes" had no sort of threat to back them up.
There were no military parades in the streets, like in Russia, or anything similar that I can think of.
Fascism is originally a left wing concept. Mussolini famously said All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. He and fascism were all the rage with the American left during the 1930's. Italy became a model to the American left in a way similar to the Soviet Union. And, of course, Mussolini was a former socialist firebrand. He was a man of the left.
"Fascist" became a dirty word through the efforts of the Third International, fight the Nazi-Fascist menace.
Libertarians the extreme right or the right are not. They are conservatives, though American conservatives once had a libertarian streak. The extremes just wish to conserve more than anybody else. Actually, there are almost no libertarians, no live and let live, no tolerance. Rather, my way or the highway on the left and the right.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 12, 2022, 08:55:22 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2022, 08:44:49 AM
Example of authoritarianism: Are you serious? How about supporting Trump/Republican attacks on US democracy and efforts to overturn the results of a free and fair election.
But that's the point: There wasn't any sort of military support; it was totally a "wild west" style of riot. The police, National guard, etc. opposed the capital riots. And Trump's personal "call" to governors to "find more votes" had no sort of threat to back them up.
There were no military parades in the streets, like in Russia, or anything similar that I can think of.
Respectfully, your post makes no sense. The right wing sought to overturn the results of a free and fair election. That is as authoritarian as it gets. Fortunately the system does not make it easy to deploy the military in support of that effort, but that does not make the effort any less authoritarian.
And, again, respectfully, your thread is just wrong. The far right is not libertarian. It has libertarian roots, to a large extent, but those roots have grown into a non-libertarian tree and the responses to your OP show that clearly. I would also not describe it as fascist, although it has some elements of fascism (hyper nationalism and authoritarian).
'White nationalism' is the left's new term for what used to be called patriotism, and what actually is.
ETA:
QuoteTrump in control: Trump is an incompetent fool and his administration was a chaotic mess, but once again this thread is not about that. It is about whether the far right is libertarian or fascist, and their cult-like worship of Trump is not in line with libertarianism.
You can just state something like that? Please. He succeeded at things other people tried to do but couldn't, like getting nominated and then getting elected, getting some control of the southern border, having a highly rated television show, extendedly, running an economy through rough times without inflation, reducing unemployment. He has done difficult things.
Quote from: mahagonny on January 12, 2022, 09:34:11 AM
'White nationalism' is the left's new term for what used to be called patriotism, and what actually is.
White nationalists are far from patriotic and their presence in the Republican party should make sensible conservatives sick.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2022, 09:40:30 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 12, 2022, 09:34:11 AM
'White nationalism' is the left's new term for what used to be called patriotism, and what actually is.
White nationalists are scum. They are not patriotic and their presence in the Republican party should make sensible conservatives sick.
That may all be true. I've never met any.
QuoteIf you consider yourself a "white nationalist patriot" then your loved ones should get you mental help to de-radicalize you.
I consider myself a centrist, politically, but some are calling everyone who doesn't repudiate the United States of America, wholesale, white nationalists. Including, probably, Larry Elder, Tim Scott, Kim Klacik.
Quote from: mahagonny on January 12, 2022, 09:34:11 AM
I consider myself a centrist, politically,
Lmao, ok bro.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2022, 09:21:25 AM
The far right is not libertarian. It has libertarian roots, to a large extent, but those roots have grown into a non-libertarian tree and the responses to your OP show that clearly. I would also not describe it as fascist, although it has some elements of fascism (hyper nationalism and authoritarian).
Consider these two options, and which would be more popular with the "far right".
- Increase military spending, even if it requires increasing taxes.
- Cutting taxes, even if it requires cutting military spending.
From all I've seen, #2 would be
vastly more popular.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on January 12, 2022, 09:46:53 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 12, 2022, 09:34:11 AM
I consider myself a centrist, politically,
Lmao, ok bro.
You may call me a conservative. I think we are all conservatives. Some of us just don't realize it. Conservativism is what living produces. You get up, you work, you make breakfast and feed your family with things you've bought and saved. You plan, you sell your labor or start a business. You procreate. you think for yourself. These are conservative values, and we all have them.
ETA: However, if you please, I am not 'bro.' I am gender non-binary.
I'd say libertarian, with fascist elements.
It's certainly not "conservative" in any meaningful sense. Conservatives by definition aren't radicals, which is what the far right and far left are. They can be bamboozled into supporting far-right ideologues if they're frightened enough. Liberals can by the same token sometimes be bamboozled by far-left ideologues. I'd call our far left more identitarian than Marxist, though.
Quote from: apl68 on January 12, 2022, 12:44:09 PM
I'd say libertarian, with fascist elements.
It's certainly not "conservative" in any meaningful sense. Conservatives by definition aren't radicals, which is what the far right and far left are. They can be bamboozled into supporting far-right ideologues if they're frightened enough. Liberals can by the same token sometimes be bamboozled by far-left ideologues. I'd call our far left more identitarian than Marxist, though.
That's part of neo-marxism.
It is like generals preparing to fight the last war when people say "fascist". It was a product of Europe after WW1 where you had utter devastation, monarchy, state sponsored churches, increased urbanization, labor unrest and the threat of communism. It really does not fit any serious movement today. I can grant you totalitarian and authoritarian as legitimate terminology.
Quote from: dismalist on January 12, 2022, 09:05:28 AM
Fascism is originally a left wing concept. Mussolini famously said All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. He and fascism were all the rage with the American left during the 1930's. Italy became a model to the American left in a way similar to the Soviet Union. And, of course, Mussolini was a former socialist firebrand. He was a man of the left.
"Fascist" became a dirty word through the efforts of the Third International, fight the Nazi-Fascist menace.
Libertarians the extreme right or the right are not. They are conservatives, though American conservatives once had a libertarian streak. The extremes just wish to conserve more than anybody else. Actually, there are almost no libertarians, no live and let live, no tolerance. Rather, my way or the highway on the left and the right.
Quote from: Anselm on January 12, 2022, 02:16:43 PM
It is like generals preparing to fight the last war when people say "fascist". It was a product of Europe after WW1 where you had utter devastation, monarchy, state sponsored churches, increased urbanization, labor unrest and the threat of communism. It really does not fit any serious movement today. I can grant you totalitarian and authoritarian as legitimate terminology.
While there is no real threat of Soviet style communism today, neo-marxism has taken the place of original marxism. That is a threat and it comes form the left.
And, see above, would be happy to call this leftist movement fascist.
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 12, 2022, 09:49:05 AM
Consider these two options, and which would be more popular with the "far right".
- Increase military spending, even if it requires increasing taxes.
- Cutting taxes, even if it requires cutting military spending.
From all I've seen, #2 would be vastly more popular.
This may be true on the whole, but where I live, out here in rural "God, guts, guns, and Trump country," the majority are perfectly happy to raise taxes, so long as they can maintain and increase funds to Support The Troops
tm.
Of course, many of those same people in my rural county--with 80%+ of kids on free lunch, a sizeable percentage on SNAP and other aid, roughly 1/3 of adults retired and about 18% of remaining adults on some form of SSI/disability due to drugs/alcohol (according to a recent study by local researchers)--don't have a pot to p*ss in or the window to pour it out, so increasing taxes doesn't mean a damn to them.
The original question is an interesting one. My area might (or might not) be representative, but it's certainly not unique, which is where I think a lot of the distortion of labels and ideologies (at least in the informal/casual sense) might come from. It's easy to spout crazy ideas and scream for the overthrow of a system when you don't have a dog in the fight (so long as your government checks keep coming).
Just my $0.02, and thinking out loud, FWIW.
Significant portions of the Republican party support authoriatianism, they are undermining democratic voting in as many ways as they can invent, they are openly anti-intellectual and anti-science, they threaten the free press, they have mobs inflicting violence on the rest of the population, they have militias around the country, and they are openly racist. There's also a large cult of personality, which has long been associated with fascist movements. Some call it proto-fascist, or have other names for it. I think fascist fits perfectly well. It is a provocative term, to be sure. But it is also descriptive.
Quote from: downer on January 12, 2022, 02:41:41 PM
Significant portions of the Republican party support authoriatianism, they are undermining democratic voting in as many ways as they can invent, they are openly anti-intellectual and anti-science, they threaten the free press, they have mobs inflicting violence on the rest of the population, they have militias around the country, and they are openly racist. There's also a large cult of personality, which has long been associated with fascist movements. Some call it proto-fascist, or have other names for it. I think fascist fits perfectly well. It is a provocative term, to be sure. But it is also descriptive.
Show me someone who's openly racist on the right. If you even can I am pretty sure they are marginal and impotent.
ETA: Being is disagreement with what some intellectuals are promoting is not the same as being anti-intellectual. An intellectual is simply someone whose professional product is ideas. These ideas can range from constructive and timely to stupid, fantastic all the way down to pernicious.
'fascism' and 'socialism', hell even 'libertarianism' are overused terms that are often sloppily defined, or even redefined out of all resemblance to their traditional meanings, but at least all three of these do have recognized dictionary -definition meanings, whereas coinages such as 'woke' and 'neo-Marxism', not so much.
Ideas have consequences, and words mean things. Sadly, in our increasingly non-reader dumbed-down country, more and more people do not have the intellectual wherewithal and knowledge base to credibly interact with people and groups/ institutions who are promulgating lies and half-truths. And this is getting us people like Trump, and perhaps who knows who worse than him after him....
One issue is that the right is not united. They are not libertarianism or fascism, but include both elements in an uneasy union.
Anti-abortion and the war on drugs are not libertarian, bit staples of the repubs. The Republicans consistently increase spending despite their stated beliefs, so they are not even conservative in many ways. As a whole, I don't know that they can be easily defined since they include so many different ideologies that only align together because there is some overlap.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 04:35:51 AM
One issue is that the right is not united. They are not libertarianism or fascism, but include both elements in an uneasy union.
Anti-abortion and the war on drugs are not libertarian, bit staples of the repubs. The Republicans consistently increase spending despite their stated beliefs, so they are not even conservative in many ways. As a whole, I don't know that they can be easily defined since they include so many different ideologies that only align together because there is some overlap.
You're right--it should never be forgotten that both the "right" and the "left" in American politics are very heterogeneous groupings. A lot of alliances of convenience between people who often don't have a lot in common and don't really approve of each other. Nobody who tries to tar either of these amorphous groupings all with the same brush is being anything like fair.
One thing that should be concerning us is the great rise in the number of people who feel deeply alienated by what they see happening in our society. I've heard people of all persuasions saying variations of "This doesn't feel like my country anymore." We've always had people who felt like this wasn't really their country, or like they didn't really belong in our society. We've never had a time when this feeling was so widespread. How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
One thing that should be concerning us is the great rise in the number of people who feel deeply alienated by what they see happening in our society. I've heard people of all persuasions saying variations of "This doesn't feel like my country anymore." We've always had people who felt like this wasn't really their country, or like they didn't really belong in our society. We've never had a time when this feeling was so widespread. How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
Both the right and left contribute to this.
The right contributes by opposing immigration, suggesting that this isn't "their country".
The left contribute by talking about "systemic" racism, sexism, etc. so they're (theoretically sympathetically) telling most people "sorry, but this wasn't meant to be 'your country', and the system is designed to make sure it never is."
It's no wonder people feel disengaged. The only reasonable emotions are anger or despair.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
One thing that should be concerning us is the great rise in the number of people who feel deeply alienated by what they see happening in our society. I've heard people of all persuasions saying variations of "This doesn't feel like my country anymore." We've always had people who felt like this wasn't really their country, or like they didn't really belong in our society. We've never had a time when this feeling was so widespread. How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
Both the right and left contribute to this.
The right contributes by opposing immigration, suggesting that this isn't "their country".
The left contribute by talking about "systemic" racism, sexism, etc. so they're (theoretically sympathetically) telling most people "sorry, but this wasn't meant to be 'your country', and the system is designed to make sure it never is."
It's no wonder people feel disengaged. The only reasonable emotions are anger or despair.
Who are the people that oppose immigration, and what are their methods? I'm not aware of any. Having laws in place for a process of legal immigration is enabling immigration, not opposing it. (Although if you claim you're against illegal immigration, but hire illegal immigrants, well...)
Quote from: mahagonny on January 13, 2022, 07:30:59 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.
The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many. I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils.
I am in Canada, but fall into this boat. It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 13, 2022, 07:30:59 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.
The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many. I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils.
I am in Canada, but fall into this boat. It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.
Realistically, this is to be expected. There are many different dimensions of governing, and there's no reason that a party's position on one issue automatically dictates a specific position on a completely different issue. (The terms "left" and "right" imply everything is on a one-dimensional continuum, but I believe that terminology just came from the layout of the French National Assembly.) There would probably need to be as many parties as citizens for everyone to find a party with whom they agree on
everything.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 10:41:43 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 13, 2022, 07:30:59 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.
The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many. I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils.
I am in Canada, but fall into this boat. It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.
Realistically, this is to be expected. There are many different dimensions of governing, and there's no reason that a party's position on one issue automatically dictates a specific position on a completely different issue. (The terms "left" and "right" imply everything is on a one-dimensional continuum, but I believe that terminology just came from the layout of the French National Assembly.) There would probably need to be as many parties as citizens for everyone to find a party with whom they agree on everything.
This is true, but I feel the two party system in the USA makes it much more extreme. There are also a issues around electoral systems that contribute to the feeling that your vote dosn't matter (electoral college in the US, first past the post system here). In the end, a lot of people don't feel the government represents them at all regardless of who is voted in, or that they have any agency in the process.
Again, this largely describes me. Despite many of the differences between parties, there are many issues where I dont see much difference among parties and my opinion is just not represented. In many cases, they offer up different sounding policies that avoid addressing some of the core issues where they are really no different.
A good example of this right now is housing prices. They all acknowledge it is an issue and offer up different sounding solutions, but none of them are willing to do anything that would actually address the problem. The end result is a selection of meaningless platitudes.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 11:31:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 10:41:43 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 13, 2022, 07:30:59 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.
The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many. I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils.
I am in Canada, but fall into this boat. It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.
Realistically, this is to be expected. There are many different dimensions of governing, and there's no reason that a party's position on one issue automatically dictates a specific position on a completely different issue. (The terms "left" and "right" imply everything is on a one-dimensional continuum, but I believe that terminology just came from the layout of the French National Assembly.) There would probably need to be as many parties as citizens for everyone to find a party with whom they agree on everything.
This is true, but I feel the two party system in the USA makes it much more extreme. There are also a issues around electoral systems that contribute to the feeling that your vote doesn't matter (electoral college in the US, first past the post system here). In the end, a lot of people don't feel the government represents them at all regardless of who is voted in, or that they have any agency in the process.
I totally agree. The two party system essentially makes EVERY election a battle between US and THEM, GOOD and EVIL, etc.
Quote
Again, this largely describes me. Despite many of the differences between parties, there are many issues where I don't see much difference among parties and my opinion is just not represented. In many cases, they offer up different sounding policies that avoid addressing some of the core issues where they are really no different.
A good example of this right now is housing prices. They all acknowledge it is an issue and offer up different sounding solutions, but none of them are willing to do anything that would actually address the problem. The end result is a selection of meaningless platitudes.
Housing prices gives a good example of the dilemma parties face. Some price increases are due to things like foreign speculation, which probably most people would agree is bad since it hurts local residents to favour offshore rich people. However, what happens in the case of people who have owned a house for decades, done lots of renos, perhaps even mostly by their own sweat if they're handy? Shouldn't they be able to realize the gains due in part to their own labour, and certainly NOT due to speculation or any of those bad things?
There are all kinds of scenarios that prevent there being a common idea of what is "fair", even if everyone realizes the pace of price increases is unsustainable, even to the point of a possible impending crash.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 13, 2022, 07:30:59 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.
The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many. I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils.
I am in Canada, but fall into this boat. It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.
The democrats are about to get creamed. That's what their problem is. Now that they are starting to realize this they want to talk.
In an academic discussion forum, the democrats and left have a clear majority. But that doesn't mean they have an electoral advantage. They talk like they do, anyway.
Picking the lesser of two evils is a lot better than not voting. Fine with me!
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 11:43:14 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 11:31:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 10:41:43 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 13, 2022, 07:30:59 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.
The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many. I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils.
I am in Canada, but fall into this boat. It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.
Realistically, this is to be expected. There are many different dimensions of governing, and there's no reason that a party's position on one issue automatically dictates a specific position on a completely different issue. (The terms "left" and "right" imply everything is on a one-dimensional continuum, but I believe that terminology just came from the layout of the French National Assembly.) There would probably need to be as many parties as citizens for everyone to find a party with whom they agree on everything.
This is true, but I feel the two party system in the USA makes it much more extreme. There are also a issues around electoral systems that contribute to the feeling that your vote doesn't matter (electoral college in the US, first past the post system here). In the end, a lot of people don't feel the government represents them at all regardless of who is voted in, or that they have any agency in the process.
I totally agree. The two party system essentially makes EVERY election a battle between US and THEM, GOOD and EVIL, etc.
Quote
Again, this largely describes me. Despite many of the differences between parties, there are many issues where I don't see much difference among parties and my opinion is just not represented. In many cases, they offer up different sounding policies that avoid addressing some of the core issues where they are really no different.
A good example of this right now is housing prices. They all acknowledge it is an issue and offer up different sounding solutions, but none of them are willing to do anything that would actually address the problem. The end result is a selection of meaningless platitudes.
Housing prices gives a good example of the dilemma parties face. Some price increases are due to things like foreign speculation, which probably most people would agree is bad since it hurts local residents to favour offshore rich people. However, what happens in the case of people who have owned a house for decades, done lots of renos, perhaps even mostly by their own sweat if they're handy? Shouldn't they be able to realize the gains due in part to their own labour, and certainly NOT due to speculation or any of those bad things?
There are all kinds of scenarios that prevent there being a common idea of what is "fair", even if everyone realizes the pace of price increases is unsustainable, even to the point of a possible impending crash.
Most people do agree that foreign speculation is bad, but no political party has proposed anything that would prevent, or substantially reduce it. The foreign investor taxes they introduced are far too low to have much impact and there are too many loopholes. This is why it is a good example, none of the political parties are willing to address the issue even though I think most people would want them to. As a result, many people have to choose between options that simply do not reflect their stance (on this topic).
As for people that invested to improve property, they should indeed reap rewards, but not to the extreme levels we see now. As you say, the growth is unsustainable, so the market will either end up crashing or the upcoming generation will simply not be able to afford housing unless they are born in the right family. Either way, this was a fairly major item in the recent election yet none of the parties offered anything of substance.
This is simply one example, and there are many more that leave a large segment of the population feeling that they are not being represented at all.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 12:00:35 PM
Most people do agree that foreign speculation is bad, but no political party has proposed anything that would prevent, or substantially reduce it. The foreign investor taxes they introduced are far too low to have much impact and there are too many loopholes. This is why it is a good example, none of the political parties are willing to address the issue even though I think most people would want them to. As a result, many people have to choose between options that simply do not reflect their stance (on this topic).
As for people that invested to improve property, they should indeed reap rewards, but not to the extreme levels we see now. As you say, the growth is unsustainable, so the market will either end up crashing or the upcoming generation will simply not be able to afford housing unless they are born in the right family. Either way, this was a fairly major item in the recent election yet none of the parties offered anything of substance.
This is simply one example, and there are many more that leave a large segment of the population feeling that they are not being represented at all.
But every issue (like this) has the problem evident in Brexit and Quebec independence. Lots of people want "something" to change, but many of their ideas for what to change are actually mutually exclusive. So as soon as any SPECIFIC measure is proposed, the "unity" of desire for change is fractured. Parties know this, and so their safest bet is to talk about "change" without being very specific. Once in power, they're paralyzed by the knowledge that whatever they do will be much less popular than the basic idea of "change".
People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]! Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.
Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 12:09:14 PM
People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!
It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.
Quote
Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.
Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.
Yes, that last point is the important one.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 12:16:03 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 12:09:14 PM
People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!
It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.
Quote
Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.
Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.
Yes, that last point is the important one.
No, it's all important! :-)
Prices up in Vancouver? One can move bricks and mortar from anywhere even to Vancouver to build more houses. That is not happening on account of -- us.
In general, it's hard to find special cases when people and good are mobile. Law of One Price. So, when this law doesn't apply, one looks for barriers to mobility.
Wait 'til we all Zoom for everything!
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 12:43:52 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 12:16:03 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 12:09:14 PM
People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!
It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.
Quote
Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.
Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.
Yes, that last point is the important one.
No, it's all important! :-)
Prices up in Vancouver? One can move bricks and mortar from anywhere even to Vancouver to build more houses.
Sure, but you can't move the ocean and mountains to other places. And the space between said ocean and mountains is finite, so the desirability of the location and the space available are factors that have nothing to do with regulation.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 11:31:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 10:41:43 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 10:11:09 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on January 13, 2022, 07:30:59 AM
Quote from: apl68 on January 13, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
How can a democratic society operate effectively if most people in it feel--for whatever reasons--like they don't have any ownership of it?
By voting out the party with the unpopular ideas, as appears imminent for next November.
The problem is that both parties have unpopular ideas for many. I think one of the issues in America (and most democracies) is that many people don't feel either/any party truly represents them and are forced to pick what they see as the lesser of two evils.
I am in Canada, but fall into this boat. It is hard to get excited to vote when you don't like any of the options.
Realistically, this is to be expected. There are many different dimensions of governing, and there's no reason that a party's position on one issue automatically dictates a specific position on a completely different issue. (The terms "left" and "right" imply everything is on a one-dimensional continuum, but I believe that terminology just came from the layout of the French National Assembly.) There would probably need to be as many parties as citizens for everyone to find a party with whom they agree on everything.
This is true, but I feel the two party system in the USA makes it much more extreme.
Well...maybe. But if there's a party for every possible voter profile, then you've got lots and lots of parties, some of them quite extreme. In nations where the legislature is balkanized into many parties, every government has to be a coalition government. Which in some cases can give a lot of influence to a relatively small but extreme party that can offer itself as a kind of swing voter. Or create situations where parties can't agree to form a coalition, and the legislature ends up gridlocked as Congress has often found itself in recent years.
This is one reason why I'm skeptical of the notion that our democracy is broken because our constitution is broken, and could be fixed if we just tinkered with it enough to make it more like this or that other country's system. If the culture throws up enough alienated extremists, then no set of political safeguards can insure good operation of government.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 12:54:12 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 12:43:52 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 12:16:03 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 12:09:14 PM
People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!
It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.
Quote
Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.
Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.
Yes, that last point is the important one.
No, it's all important! :-)
Prices up in Vancouver? One can move bricks and mortar from anywhere even to Vancouver to build more houses.
Sure, but you can't move the ocean and mountains to other places. And the space between said ocean and mountains is finite, so the desirability of the location and the space available are factors that have nothing to do with regulation.
Lucky if one has been in Vancouver before the rush!
What, is that like Monaco?
Build up, man, build up! That is so cheap. Get that density up so that more people can enjoy the space between the ocean and the mountains. No one does on account the existing owners are benefiting from existing regulation.
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 01:04:42 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 12:54:12 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 12:43:52 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 12:16:03 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 12:09:14 PM
People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!
It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.
Quote
Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.
Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.
Yes, that last point is the important one.
No, it's all important! :-)
Prices up in Vancouver? One can move bricks and mortar from anywhere even to Vancouver to build more houses.
Sure, but you can't move the ocean and mountains to other places. And the space between said ocean and mountains is finite, so the desirability of the location and the space available are factors that have nothing to do with regulation.
Lucky if one has been in Vancouver before the rush!
What, is that like Monaco?
Build up, man, build up! That is so cheap. Get that density up so that more people can enjoy the space between the ocean and the mountains. No one does on account the existing owners are benefiting from existing regulation.
Then you have the drive-in theatre problem. High things near the water block the view from lower things behind. It becomes a height arms race. The problem with completely unfettered markets is that it allows the richest jerks to basically screw everyone else.
I'm not a socialist by any means, but just allowing the richest and most powerful to do whatever they want doesn't make for a pleasant society.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 01:13:02 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 01:04:42 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 12:54:12 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 12:43:52 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 12:16:03 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 12:09:14 PM
People, house prices are not rising because of bad people [foreign speculators]!
It depends somewhat on the market. Vancouver has had a lot more pressure because of that, (including lots of unoccupied houses owned by Asian investors), than other Canadian cities.
Quote
Demand is growing as we get richer. New supply is low on account zoning laws, nimbys, and so on. In other words, the source of the problem is us.
Any political party will have trouble changing a policy from which sufficient numbers [of homeowners] benefit to swing elections.
Yes, that last point is the important one.
No, it's all important! :-)
Prices up in Vancouver? One can move bricks and mortar from anywhere even to Vancouver to build more houses.
Sure, but you can't move the ocean and mountains to other places. And the space between said ocean and mountains is finite, so the desirability of the location and the space available are factors that have nothing to do with regulation.
Lucky if one has been in Vancouver before the rush!
What, is that like Monaco?
Build up, man, build up! That is so cheap. Get that density up so that more people can enjoy the space between the ocean and the mountains. No one does on account the existing owners are benefiting from existing regulation.
Then you have the drive-in theatre problem. High things near the water block the view from lower things behind. It becomes a height arms race. The problem with completely unfettered markets is that it allows the richest jerks to basically screw everyone else.
I'm not a socialist by any means, but just allowing the richest and most powerful to do whatever they want doesn't make for a pleasant society.
Never meant to imply a Houston, which works because it is surrounded by desert. If you don't build up, completely fettered, not unfettered, markets make sure the original owners win, and politicos make sure it's kept that way.
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 01:21:15 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 01:13:02 PM
High things near the water block the view from lower things behind. It becomes a height arms race. The problem with completely unfettered markets is that it allows the richest jerks to basically screw everyone else.
I'm not a socialist by any means, but just allowing the richest and most powerful to do whatever they want doesn't make for a pleasant society.
Never meant to imply a Houston, which works because it is surrounded by desert. If you don't build up, completely fettered, not unfettered, markets make sure the original owners win, and politicos make sure it's kept that way.
Building up is going to be part of the solution, but it needs to be done carefully so that it doesn't just shaft people willy-nilly. Part of the point of regulation is to have a long term plan, which is public, so everyone can plan ahead about where things are going, rather than waking up one morning and finding out some developer has just blown the whole existing vibe to pieces.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 01:29:55 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 01:21:15 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 01:13:02 PM
High things near the water block the view from lower things behind. It becomes a height arms race. The problem with completely unfettered markets is that it allows the richest jerks to basically screw everyone else.
I'm not a socialist by any means, but just allowing the richest and most powerful to do whatever they want doesn't make for a pleasant society.
Never meant to imply a Houston, which works because it is surrounded by desert. If you don't build up, completely fettered, not unfettered, markets make sure the original owners win, and politicos make sure it's kept that way.
Building up is going to be part of the solution, but it needs to be done carefully so that it doesn't just shaft people willy-nilly. Part of the point of regulation is to have a long term plan, which is public, so everyone can plan ahead about where things are going, rather than waking up one morning and finding out some developer has just blown the whole existing vibe to pieces.
Look at it the other way around: The property owners get their way, unhindered by politicos. The low paid move out, putting upward pressure on their wages in Monaco or Vancouver. The low paid then become higher paid and can then afford to live there. Once again, a self correcting problem.
What, me worry? :-)
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 01:39:14 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 01:29:55 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 01:21:15 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 01:13:02 PM
High things near the water block the view from lower things behind. It becomes a height arms race. The problem with completely unfettered markets is that it allows the richest jerks to basically screw everyone else.
I'm not a socialist by any means, but just allowing the richest and most powerful to do whatever they want doesn't make for a pleasant society.
Never meant to imply a Houston, which works because it is surrounded by desert. If you don't build up, completely fettered, not unfettered, markets make sure the original owners win, and politicos make sure it's kept that way.
Building up is going to be part of the solution, but it needs to be done carefully so that it doesn't just shaft people willy-nilly. Part of the point of regulation is to have a long term plan, which is public, so everyone can plan ahead about where things are going, rather than waking up one morning and finding out some developer has just blown the whole existing vibe to pieces.
Look at it the other way around: The property owners get their way, unhindered by politicos. The low paid move out, putting upward pressure on their wages in Monaco or Vancouver. The low paid then become higher paid and can then afford to live there. Once again, a self correcting problem.
What, me worry? :-)
Except that it isn't self correcting, or not at a quick enough rate to really help (self correcting in this sense is reactive). If salaries were keeping pace with housing, this would not be an issue, but they are not.
As for the claim that demand is going up because we are getting richer, that could be partially true but prices are out-pacing salary growth so it is only part of the story. Sure, we are getting richer (you could argue that has stalled given inflation), but not as fast as prices are rising.
Personally, I feel this is all a result of poor planning and regulation. We know the population growth since it is almost entirely fueled through immigration (which should be largely tied to housing demand), yet we failed to ensure there is adequate housing development to supply the easily predicted need. There is also a case to prevent foreign buyers (in some regions where this is a real issue) and tax people more on housing they are using as rental properties.
It all just depends on priorities. The issue with our democracies is that their priority is largely being re-elected. This makes them very unlikely to make tough decisions that piss people off but are the best choice for the country in the longer term. I feel this is one reason China is overtaking the West in many regards....
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 01:39:14 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 01:29:55 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 13, 2022, 01:21:15 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2022, 01:13:02 PM
High things near the water block the view from lower things behind. It becomes a height arms race. The problem with completely unfettered markets is that it allows the richest jerks to basically screw everyone else.
I'm not a socialist by any means, but just allowing the richest and most powerful to do whatever they want doesn't make for a pleasant society.
Never meant to imply a Houston, which works because it is surrounded by desert. If you don't build up, completely fettered, not unfettered, markets make sure the original owners win, and politicos make sure it's kept that way.
Building up is going to be part of the solution, but it needs to be done carefully so that it doesn't just shaft people willy-nilly. Part of the point of regulation is to have a long term plan, which is public, so everyone can plan ahead about where things are going, rather than waking up one morning and finding out some developer has just blown the whole existing vibe to pieces.
Look at it the other way around: The property owners get their way, unhindered by politicos. The low paid move out, putting upward pressure on their wages in Monaco or Vancouver. The low paid then become higher paid and can then afford to live there. Once again, a self correcting problem.
What, me worry? :-)
Except that it isn't self correcting, or not at a quick enough rate to really help (self correcting in this sense is reactive). If salaries were keeping pace with housing, this would not be an issue, but they are not.
As for the claim that demand is going up because we are getting richer, that could be partially true but prices are out-pacing salary growth so it is only part of the story. Sure, we are getting richer (you could argue that has stalled given inflation), but not as fast as prices are rising.
Personally, I feel this is all a result of poor planning and regulation. We know the population growth since it is almost entirely fueled through immigration (which should be largely tied to housing demand), yet we failed to ensure there is adequate housing development to supply the easily predicted need. There is also a case to prevent foreign buyers (in some regions where this is a real issue) and tax people more on housing they are using as rental properties.
It all just depends on priorities. The issue with our democracies is that their priority is largely being re-elected. This makes them very unlikely to make tough decisions that piss people off but are the best choice for the country in the longer term. I feel this is one reason China is overtaking the West in many regards....
Yup, totally agreed: Bad regulation in the face of increasing demand.
Don't build near me.
[Please do not worry about China. Perhaps subject of another thread, perhaps not.]
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 02:18:02 PM
As for the claim that demand is going up because we are getting richer, that could be partially true but prices are out-pacing salary growth so it is only part of the story. Sure, we are getting richer (you could argue that has stalled given inflation), but not as fast as prices are rising.
Personally, I feel this is all a result of poor planning and regulation. We know the population growth since it is almost entirely fueled through immigration (which should be largely tied to housing demand), yet we failed to ensure there is adequate housing development to supply the easily predicted need. There is also a case to prevent foreign buyers (in some regions where this is a real issue) and tax people more on housing they are using as rental properties.
It all just depends on priorities. The issue with our democracies is that their priority is largely being re-elected. This makes them very unlikely to make tough decisions that piss people off but are the best choice for the country in the longer term. I feel this is one reason China is overtaking the West in many regards....
The biggest driver of rising house prices is the sustained period of historically low interest rates. When interest rates finally rise, prices will have to come down. People can take on monstrous amounts of debt because it's so cheap to carry
right now. When I bought my first car, it was the other end of the interest rate spectrum, and I was paying 20% interest. When mortgage rates rise to something more like a 20 year average, there will be a big "correction".
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2022, 04:17:00 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2022, 02:18:02 PM
As for the claim that demand is going up because we are getting richer, that could be partially true but prices are out-pacing salary growth so it is only part of the story. Sure, we are getting richer (you could argue that has stalled given inflation), but not as fast as prices are rising.
Personally, I feel this is all a result of poor planning and regulation. We know the population growth since it is almost entirely fueled through immigration (which should be largely tied to housing demand), yet we failed to ensure there is adequate housing development to supply the easily predicted need. There is also a case to prevent foreign buyers (in some regions where this is a real issue) and tax people more on housing they are using as rental properties.
It all just depends on priorities. The issue with our democracies is that their priority is largely being re-elected. This makes them very unlikely to make tough decisions that piss people off but are the best choice for the country in the longer term. I feel this is one reason China is overtaking the West in many regards....
The biggest driver of rising house prices is the sustained period of historically low interest rates. When interest rates finally rise, prices will have to come down. People can take on monstrous amounts of debt because it's so cheap to carry right now. When I bought my first car, it was the other end of the interest rate spectrum, and I was paying 20% interest. When mortgage rates rise to something more like a 20 year average, there will be a big "correction".
Low interest rates make owning all long-lived goods more lucrative. How's the price explosion in machine tools coming along? In computing power?
Of course demand for such stuff goes up, but in housing, supply does not seem to follow. Housing starts in the US are at about the same level as in the 1950's. Yet we are far richer and have far more people. It's political control by homeowners that causes this. Zoning, democratically decided by small groups.