|
I like the trams because sometimes they get me to like 50m closer to my destination. The more I live in a city the lazier I become.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
throw to first drat IT posted:Buses are infinitely more flexible with their routes. And while they might be cheaper to run, they require large infrastructure investment, so actual savings happen so far in the future that there's reasonable suspicion that they will never actually materialize. I haven't been really following the tram debate, and while it is clear that many on the nay-side are utter morons, the yea-side isn't really that much better. It annoys me when people pretend that this isn't so. It is completely obvious that a lot of people don't see the tram as public transport, but as some sort of fetish object or status symbol. It is disturbing how giddy a lot of people get about any method public transport that isn't a bus. Signed, someone who has been using Tampere buses for more than two decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
HUMAN FISH posted:lmao The tram's something that should have been done fifty years ago. The traffic in the city center is a loving nightmare as it is and it's only been growing worse. Building new road for buses is both a royal bitch and you can't time buses nearly as tightly as trams to deal with bottlenecks. It's the Obamacare of Tampere - it's a vast improvement over the previous system, it just looks awful because it's a half-assed compromise in order to get past the opposition. It tells a lot that the majority of the voices against it are the ones who neither use public transport nor drive their own cars to the center unless they have to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:The tram's something that should have been done fifty years ago. The traffic in the city center is a loving nightmare as it is and it's only been growing worse. Building new road for buses is both a royal bitch and you can't time buses nearly as tightly as trams to deal with bottlenecks. It's the Obamacare of Tampere - it's a vast improvement over the previous system, it just looks awful because it's a half-assed compromise in order to get past the opposition. I mean the obvious solution is to turn the entire city center into a giant parking lot and abandon the idea of having people enjoy spending their time anywhere even close, but since there's no political will for that, the compromise is to have trams instead of buses deal with the traffic at the choke points between Pispala and Kaleva and then connect from there with buses. The ultimate endpoints of Lielahti and Hervanta are just because that's where the bulk of people are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
From what I gather Lahtarit are due to sweep Tampere again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
throw to first drat IT posted:Buses are infinitely more flexible with their routes. In general, public transportation needs are not flexible on a daily basis, since they're predictable and only shift long-term. So flexibility doesn't really bring anything to the table.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Elukka posted:https://vimeo.com/207997372  Whoa, they sure have some smart and charismatic people on there. And the arguments used.... drat. Looks like the ratikka is done for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Halla-Aho is from Lapland so not even a real Mongol SMDH.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
It's fitting Halla-aho would rather run the party from Brussels and not take any government suitcases rather than take to the political front line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Left Alliance candidate for mayor of Helsinki and noted economic genius Paavo Arhinmäki has argued that the city's rental apartments and ARA-housing stock are not a subsidy because the tenants cover all the costs. He also wants to make affordable housing the theme of his campaign. https://twitter.com/paavoarhinmaki/status/843177738135592962
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Left Alliance candidate for mayor of Helsinki and noted economic genius Paavo Arhinmäki has argued that the city's rental apartments and ARA-housing stock are not a subsidy because the tenants cover all the costs. He also wants to make affordable housing the theme of his campaign. The only "subsidy" provided by the city is marginally lower land rent. Otherwise renters cover all costs, including amortized construction costs. The reason why the rent is so much lower is because its non-profit, so if you think that aspect means its subsidized then we're going to have to redefine the term. Edit: quote:Nyt olen kaksi päivää väitellyt Libera-ihmisen ja VATT:n tutkijan kanssa siitä, tuetaanko kaupungin vuokra-asunnoissa asuvia sillä, että asunnoilla ei tehdä voittoa vaan niistä peritään omakustannevuokra. Libera-ihmisen ja VATT:n tutkijan mielestä kaikki vuokrat alle ”markkinavuokrien” ovat tukea. Heidän näkemyksensä mukaan markkinat määrittävät oikean vuokratason. Bensa fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Bensa posted:The only "subsidy" provided by the city is marginally lower land rent. Otherwise renters cover all costs, including amortized construction costs. The reason why the rent is so much lower is because its non-profit, so if you think that aspect means its subsidized then we're going to have to redefine the term. I lived in an apartment priced according to similar principles since it was owned by a foundation. About thirty square meters, Vaasankatu in Kallio, the rent was less than 400 a month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Bensa posted:The only "subsidy" provided by the city is marginally lower land rent. Otherwise renters cover all costs, including amortized construction costs. The reason why the rent is so much lower is because its non-profit, so if you think that aspect means its subsidized then we're going to have to redefine the term. You are redefining the term. It's a subsidy because rents on city housing are much lower than market rents. If you rented the flats out at market prices and instead gave the difference in cash (to spend on housing) to those who would have got the cheap apartments, nobody would deny that that's a subsidy. Yet for some reason the same economic transaction stops being a subsidy in your mind if the benefit is not cash. If the recipient was a company instead of people (i.e. the city rented its properties to a company on a at-cost basis), you'd complain like mad about how this company receives a subsidy and others don't. Arhenmäki started ranting about subsidies when the city was about to offer land at a discount to Guggenheim, but apparently giving apartments to ministers at below market rates is not a subsidy. A subsidy doesn't have to be loss-making on a cash/accounting basis, just on an economic one. Government owned housing allow some people (usually chosen arbitrarily or on the basis of who understands the bureaucracy, for example HITAS lotteries) to live cheaper than others. If the government rented the housing out at market prices, they could then give that money out instead. The only way these two policies are equivalent is if all the people who live in government housing need housing support (Arhis lived in supported housing as a minister, so that's not the case) and if there is no shortage of government housing (also not the case). In the real world, government supported housing is a subsidy to people who know how to (and are willing to, like Arhis was) game the system and a burden on everyone else. Not to mention the ridiculous idea of basing things on construction costs and etc. which will automatically favor people living in older and more central apartments, for no real reason. The "Libera ihmiset" is Arhinmäki a great example of left-populism. The following people (taking this list from Pursiainen's twitter) have also pointed out that he's an idiot: Osmo Soininvaara (Green party), Hannu Vartiainen (professor of economics, Helsinki University), Jan Vapaavuori (mayoral candidate, Kokoomus), Mikko Kiesiläinen (Green party), the government institute for economic research (VATT). Basically, anyone who understands opportunity cost would disagree with him. This isn't about left or right, it's actually pretty simple. Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I lived in an apartment priced according to similar principles since it was owned by a foundation. About thirty square meters, Vaasankatu in Kallio, the rent was less than 400 a month. There's nothing wrong with foundations and private individuals pricing these things under market rates because the taxpayer doesn't lose out. If foundations want to favor certain groups (students, Swedes etc) that's up to them, someone gave them money for that purpose. But the purpose of our city government isn't to favor people who know how to game the housing lottery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:There's nothing wrong with foundations and private individuals pricing these things under market rates because the taxpayer doesn't lose out. If foundations want to favor certain groups (students, Swedes etc) that's up to them, someone gave them money for that purpose. But the purpose of our city government isn't to favor people who know how to game the housing lottery. Frankly this gimmick is getting old. We get it, poor people should suffer and die. That's literally the only thing you're consistent about. Just repeating the same post in different words is however profoundly lovely posting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Frankly this gimmick is getting old. Just because you blindly follow the LA no matter how dumb or anti-poor they are doesn't change the substance of the argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:You are redefining the term. It's a subsidy because rents on city housing are much lower than market rents. If you rented the flats out at market prices and instead gave the difference in cash (to spend on housing) to those who would have got the cheap apartments, nobody would deny that that's a subsidy. Yet for some reason the same economic transaction stops being a subsidy in your mind if the benefit is not cash. If the recipient was a company instead of people (i.e. the city rented its properties to a company on a at-cost basis), you'd complain like mad about how this company receives a subsidy and others don't. Arhenmäki started ranting about subsidies when the city was about to offer land at a discount to Guggenheim, but apparently giving apartments to ministers at below market rates is not a subsidy. If a private landlord could increase rent by 1% but chooses not to due to whatever reason, would the majority of people view that as a subsidy? In this case you're the person screaming that you can't be racist against whites since racism = power + privilege, just because your clique redefines terms doesn't make it so. The city does rent space to various companies and associations at cost due to the positive externalities, just like in the case of city apartments. It is in the interest of the city to increase population (housing costs is the major factor slowing growth in the Helsinki region), as this leads to higher land prices and theoretical tax base. The tenants pay for the apartments, the city just reaps the benefits of owning apartments it didn't pay for on top of the other benefits. Did you consider these might have a comparable economic value? Abuse of various government mechanisms is something pretty much everyone is against. HITAS has no reason to exist anymore since. Income checks on city apartments are being redone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Bensa posted:If a private landlord could increase rent by 1% but chooses not to due to whatever reason, would the majority of people view that as a subsidy? In this case you're the person screaming that you can't be racist against whites since racism = power + privilege, just because your clique redefines terms doesn't make it so. quote:The city does rent space to various companies and associations at cost due to the positive externalities, just like in the case of city apartments. It is in the interest of the city to increase population (housing costs is the major factor slowing growth in the Helsinki region), as this leads to higher land prices and theoretical tax base. The tenants pay for the apartments, the city just reaps the benefits of owning apartments it didn't pay for on top of the other benefits. Did you consider these might have a comparable economic value? Case where the city rents buildings at below market value: City reaps the benefits of owning apartments Now I get that the government might want to encourage some types of tenants moving in with a subsidy (for instance culture, so renting to galleries/Guggenheim for a lowered price), but with city owned housing the only people this encourages are people who are competent at bureaucracy. I don't see any externality to that. Maybe you can also encourage mixing of neighborhoods by bringing poor people into rich neighborhoods, but there you're giving a small number of poor people a huge subsidy and (through opportunity cost) really hurting others. quote:Abuse of various government mechanisms is something pretty much everyone is against. HITAS has no reason to exist anymore since. Income checks on city apartments are being redone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Yes yes, I agree, poor people should just die on the streets. MARKETS MARKETS MARKETS!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Case where the city rents buildings at market value: City reaps the benefits of owning apartments plus market value of rent Fixed that for you. There's plenty of empty housing stock in the Helsinki region, the invisible hand isn't exactly doing a great job of pushing down rents. The city feels that they still want people to be able to move in, city apartments help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Why should government be excluded from determining the market price?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Housing costs in Helsinki (and the surrounding areas) are a national economic issue, since something like a fourth of the Finnish population is affected by those issues. The high costs of living not only necessitate govt subsidies so that poor people can afford to live there, but also lead to people not spending their income on goods and services. Personally I'd just expropriate all the rental apartments owned by private interests and give it to those who rent them but hey, someone else might have a less drastic solution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Housing markets are a monopolist-lite affair that will never work quite like we'd want them to. It's a human centipede of rentiers each taking a cut from the next, which always pushes the market price up as far as people can pay without deciding to work in another city. That is, as long as there aren't enough houses to force some of them to lose out if they don't lower prices, which always happens by design. Unlike industrial products, houses don't depreciate in value so there's no hurry to sell them, it's also valuable to sit on one just to keep it vacant so that your other property can fetch higher rents. The public sector can massively undercut the market without operating at a loss, even if it doesn't subsidize the land rents, because it isn't forced to pay a red cent to any rentier above it in the ownership ladder. It never keeps property vacant just to preserve the prices either, and because of the low rents the demand is always enough to fill all the properties. Arhis is right, the others are wrong because they pretend that housing is a real market and not just a vehicle for low risk wealth extraction. LA is the only Finnish party that pays any attention to non-neoclassical economics that doesn't treat rentiership as a benevolent force fully comparable with industry. Really, the best thing we could do for kilpailukyky would be seizing public control over as much as possible of the non-luxury housing stock and watch as the pressure to raise wages plummets. It's well known to be one of the secrets of Germany, although one that is slowly slipping away from them due to creeping financialization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Just because you blindly follow the LA no matter how dumb or anti-poor they are doesn't change the substance of the argument. There's no substance to your argument unless you accept the premise that this theoretical free market is more important than people not going homeless. It isn't a real free market because of capital imbalance, because of cost of entry, because of incomplete knowledge and oh because people need to eat. You have no argument. You think poor people should suffer because you're hosed in the head, and literally everything else I've ever seen you write is just after-the-fact justifications.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Personally I'd just expropriate all the rental apartments owned by private interests and give it to those who rent them but hey, someone else might have a less drastic solution. Relocate the Helsinki poors to repopulate Kainuu.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Tämähän threadi on kohta paskempi kuin skandien threadi. Vuokraasuntoarpajaiset on vain harvinaisen huono tapa tukea köyhiä. Vain osa heistä saa tuurilla nauttia tästä edusta ja loput ei. Samoin jos saat perheelisäystä tai työpaikka karkaa kauaksi, niin joko jäät "väärään" asuntoon halvalla tai muutat sopivampaan ja menetät tämän etuuden, luultavasti pysyvästi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
HUMAN FISH posted:Relocate the Helsinki poors to repopulate Kainuu. Why the poors? Helsinki was founded by decreeing the porvarit of Porvoo, Tammisaari, Rauma ja Ulvila to move there. It's time for the porvarit to relocate and bring prosperity to Nälkämaa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Bensa posted:Fixed that for you. There's plenty of empty housing stock in the Helsinki region, the invisible hand isn't exactly doing a great job of pushing down rents. The city feels that they still want people to be able to move in, city apartments help. But who gets those city apartments? Are they necessarily poor? What if the money was used on services that exclusively targeted poor people instead (such as but not limited to housing subsidies)? I'm not even saying the government shouldn't build city apartments (I believe that they shouldn't, but it's not relevant for this particular argument), just that the rents should be market-level instead of massively subsidized. throw to first drat IT posted:Why should government be excluded from determining the market price? The government isn't setting the market price now, they're setting a price massively below the market price. That's why there are long lines for apartments. Shortages (defined in economics as a situation where people are willing to pay the prevailing rate but can't because quantity supplied is too low) happen when something is priced below the market price. That's why the system is unfair - the apartment no longer goes to whomever is willing to pay the most but to the person who is most competent at filling out forms. If the government priced at the market price, the market price would probably fall a little bit overall (for private and city flats). uncop posted:Housing markets are a monopolist-lite affair that will never work quite like we'd want them to. It's a human centipede of rentiers each taking a cut from the next, which always pushes the market price up as far as people can pay without deciding to work in another city. That is, as long as there aren't enough houses to force some of them to lose out if they don't lower prices, which always happens by design. Unlike industrial products, houses don't depreciate in value so there's no hurry to sell them, it's also valuable to sit on one just to keep it vacant so that your other property can fetch higher rents. quote:The public sector can massively undercut the market without operating at a loss, even if it doesn't subsidize the land rents, because it isn't forced to pay a red cent to any rentier above it in the ownership ladder. It never keeps property vacant just to preserve the prices either, and because of the low rents the demand is always enough to fill all the properties. quote:Arhis is right, the others are wrong because they pretend that housing is a real market and not just a vehicle for low risk wealth extraction. LA is the only Finnish party that pays any attention to non-neoclassical economics that doesn't treat rentiership as a benevolent force fully comparable with industry. Really, the best thing we could do for kilpailukyky would be seizing public control over as much as possible of the non-luxury housing stock and watch as the pressure to raise wages plummets. It's well known to be one of the secrets of Germany, although one that is slowly slipping away from them due to creeping financialization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Housing lottery is bad, but it's a symptom of the supply of that desirable housing being completely inadequate. The cure to housing lottery is to have more of that in-demand housing, not less. Sweden is an example of rent control failure, Germany is an example of rent control success. When limited-profit housing is the default rather than the exception, you don't have people being afraid of moving anymore. The thing is, housing subsidy is expensive and a big chunk of it goes toward raising rents because of failed markets work. Public housing is dirt cheap in the long term when you don't count the lost profits rentiers suffer as a result of public housing being available to the majority. Edit in response to GP: The pseudo-monopolistic nature of the housing market is due to land being a limited resource. Every homeowner has a monopoly to that piece of land their homes are on, and in growth centers there's an undersupply of that land, which means there's little meaningful competition required. The reason why housing prices are falling in most of Finland is that people are moving away and suppliers are actually forced to compete with each other more. Another reason why the price depreciation is so apparent is austerity: in the long term, rents cannot rise more than wages and benefits do. uncop fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Apparently my upstairs neighbour is running. Fills me with confidence how he dumped his old car on a bus stop and generally has been loving useless at life. If he gets a vote I'll be sad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Oh boy, I can't wait until London's real estate speculators find Helsinki. Will that be fun. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:House prices are depreciating in about 70% of Finnish municipalities. In Helsinki they aren't, but there's no guarantee they will always rise. And the rest of that is also wrong - housing is an extremely unmonopolistic market on the supply side, there are thousands of private landlords who compete with each other. The monopoly comes into play on the social housing side where there are only a few companies and the city who provide this kind of housing. But that's besides the point. I live in HITAS housing area built in 80's and when price controls were still in effect, these apartment rarely sold even close to HITAS price cap, as probably during next 10 years there's going to be 1000€/m^2 of mandatory repairs and couple thousand euros worth of smaller quality-of-life stuff that has to be done, if you want your apartment to maintain its value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
hillo posted:Apparently my upstairs neighbour is running. Fills me with confidence how he dumped his old car on a bus stop and generally has been loving useless at life. If he gets a vote I'll be sad. What's his candidate number?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Christian Democrat election candidate Laura Niitamo (who is also in Paavo Väyrynen's weirdo party) got into a scuffle with immigrants in rautatientori about public toilet use while participating in the regular "Suomi ensin" encampment. Pepper sprays were used, and police are investigating. Laura at first denied knowing who the perpetrator was, but then it was revealed that "immigration critic"/loonie Marco de Wit did an interview with her, where she confessed that it was her husband. This election is off to a good start.
No. 1 Callie Fan fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Olen sitä mieltä, että Helsingin asuntotilanne on lähes katastrofi ja tuntuva hidaste pk-seudun taloudelliselle toimeliaisuudelle, enkä edes lähde sanomaan mitään yksittäisille ihmisille koituvista hyvinvointitappioista. Silti melkein kaikki tässä säikeessä ehdotetut lääkkeet asian korjaamiseksi ovat pahempia kuin tauti itse. Avomurtuma on helvetin vakava juttu, mutta ei sitä oikeasti hoideta ensisijaisesti amputaatiolla. Kysynnän ja tarjonnan epätasapaino ei poistu millään muulla keinolla kuin tarjontaa lisäämällä (no okei, korjautuu se tekemällä hesestä sillä tavalla paskempi paikka, että ihmiset ei enää halua sinne, mutta sitä kai ei ole tarkoitus tehdä). Kannatan mitä tahansa markkinaehtoisia ratkaisuja tilanteen korjaamiseksi, ja jos asuisin Helsingissä, niin äänestäisin vaikka Saatanaa (kd), jos se auttaisi asiaan. Koska yksityiset puljut eivät selvästikään saa tarpeeksi taloja pystyyn (ja niillä on intressi pitää hinnat korkealla), mulle melko tavallisena sosiaaliliberaalina markkinaehtoiseksi väliaikaisratkaisuksi kelpaa myös julkisin varoin toteutettu rakentaminen, kunhan lopputuotetta ei myydä tai vuokrata alihintaan jollekin onnekkaalle. Ihan oikeasti, äänestäisin vaikka Saatanaa (kd), mutta näillä äskeisillä kriteereillä ei voisi äänestää Arhinmäkeä (vas). En voi käsittää, miten nolostuttavan tyhmä ukko se on. uncop posted:Housing lottery is bad, but it's a symptom of the supply of that desirable housing being completely inadequate. The cure to housing lottery is to have more of that in-demand housing, not less. Sweden is an example of rent control failure, Germany is an example of rent control success. When limited-profit housing is the default rather than the exception, you don't have people being afraid of moving anymore. If someone who has a job with productivity of 100k rents an apartment for 1000e/mo, and someone with a potential job with productivity of A BILLION would desperately need to rent that apartment instead, in a situation with widespread rent control there would be no price mechanism to decide who should have that apartment. Even if you care about nothing else, think about how much taxes you could get from that productivity of A BILLION. Welfare loss caused by inefficient allocation of apartments is just as bad as the welfare loss caused by inadequate supply of desirable apartments. In my personal opinion it is morally wrong to allow either of these to happen. It might not be the exact same people suffering those losses, but lack of reasonably prices apartments hurt only people who need reasonably priced apartments, meaning regular and not-spectacularly-wealthy people. You know who we are talking about in the context of Hese. quote:The thing is, housing subsidy is expensive and a big chunk of it goes toward raising rents because of failed markets work. Public housing is dirt cheap in the long term when you don't count the lost profits rentiers suffer as a result of public housing being available to the majority. Imagine if the city of Helsinki would now instantly socialize housing so that 80% of it would be owned by the city. Assume that no new houses would appear because of this. Now describe who would win if a) rents were kept the same, but the city now received it b) rent control was applied to 80% of all housing, with tenants remaining exaclty the same. c) (make your own scenario, with your criteria for who you would evict) Even with all that lost profit for landlords, the housing situation in Hese would be exactly as bad as it is now, except that the rental market would be vastly more rigid. Profit has nothing to do with it, and neither does the percentage of public housing. The only thing that matters is adequate supply, currently meaning increased construction. quote:Edit in response to GP: The pseudo-monopolistic nature of the housing market is due to land being a limited resource. Every homeowner has a monopoly to that piece of land their homes are on, and in growth centers there's an undersupply of that land, which means there's little meaningful competition required. The reason why housing prices are falling in most of Finland is that people are moving away and suppliers are actually forced to compete with each other more. How has the supply of "land" increased in those places where housing prices are dropping? What exactly have "lands suppliers" done, say it in as concrete terms as possible, to ramp up competition against each other? You can't make more land and that is a classic issue in economics, but you can develop any land further. It is this development in Hese that has made land there more valuable than the almost identical land in Kainuu. Closeness to high development lands is what makes even undeveloped Hese land valuable than undeveloped Kainuu land. You are looking at the issue completely rear end-backwards. The relatively sudden changes in market price in Hese and Kainuu are caused by changes in demand, not supply. The suppliers haven't had to change anything in their previous behaviour to cause this. Kemper Boyd posted:Personally I'd just expropriate all the rental apartments owned by private interests and give it to those who rent them but hey, someone else might have a less drastic solution. throw to first drat IT posted:Why should government be excluded from determining the market price? Because a market price is determined by supply and demand. That is the definition of market price. The government can't "determine the market price" by renting scarce apartments below the market price. If you meant to ask: Why shouldn't the government take part in creating supply at the current market price, then nothing in my opinion. If there is profit to be made in it in the short run the government could do it, but in the long run it would be better if the government funded some other things (health care, schools, etc.) instead instead of having enormous capital tied to apartment buildings. (Why should the state not own apartment buildings, you ask? Well, imagine if the state now owned a ton of apartments in Kainuu.) Joku joka on käynyt taloustieteestä muutakin kuin peruskursseja saa halutessaan korjata tästä mitä vain, enkä luultavasti kiistele siitä.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
vuohi posted:Joku joka on käynyt taloustieteestä muutakin kuin peruskursseja saa halutessaan korjata tästä mitä vain, enkä luultavasti kiistele siitä. As you may have already guessed yourself, your analysis of the housing situation is based on the neoclassical viewpoint presented on basic econ courses, which is only a fairly crude approximation of reality and therefore not sufficient on its own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:As you may have already guessed yourself, your analysis of the housing situation is based on the neoclassical viewpoint presented on basic econ courses, which is only a fairly crude approximation of reality and therefore not sufficient on its own. Tell me what's wrong in it. Bullet points are enough. Tbh, all that stuff that I have advanced knowledge of could also be called "fairly crude approximations" of whatever assumed real world phenomena they concern.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
vuohi posted:Tell me what's wrong in it. Bullet points are enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 13:54
|
|