|
Orange Devil posted:
So that paper I read is outdated now, cool. I wondered how long it would take. Also we're having the same problems with refugees getting in before Italians, and people are reacting predictably on the brown people taking ARE HOMES as opposed to the government not doing anything of use for 30 years (or being actively malicious, like the outsourced public housing zones in Rome turning out as non-places with no transit access, and often no electricity, plumbing, and residents being blackmailed into mortgaging for way above market value in order to actually get the houses they had the right to). Although, to be honest, the government being useless is the expectation, and it's not like large social programmes were ever on the menu.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Yes if we dramatically hike prices on stuff to the point where no one can afford it I'm sure it will be more expensive. You're one hell of an economist. Problem is that fuel is for many people an inelastic demand, which means the thresholds needed to make most people stop purchasing it is extremely high. For many people fuel, like food and shelter, is something they have few options to avoid needing. For someone who needs a car to get to work, no price hike except one that eats their entire disposable income will make them stop driving. Because without fuel there is no income. Similarly, for someone with poor access to public transit the cost would have to be enormous to make them give up 3-6 hours a day, because time also has an opportunity cost. And before you say 'why do they just not move to places with good transit', transit options are heavily correlated to land value which is heavy correlated to the cost of purchasing or renting a home. In our economic system people to a large degree are not in full control of their circumstances. I... don't think you have any idea what "inelastic demand" means. If prices going up by 10% results in consumption going down by 6-8%, as has happened in the real world in Europe to date with fuel taxes, then fuel today clearly isn't particularly inelastic. Thats an extremely good rate of return for government intervention. Less than 20% of France live in rural areas, and only a small minority of them are classified as living in rural poverty. There really aren't that many people that increased diesel taxes will hugely negatively impact, and those that exist can be easily helped by the government - if the government is so inclined. Fuel taxes have been shown time and again in Europe to reduce fuel demand. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't work. Fighting so hard against them is counterproductive, because in the medium to long run they're definitely going to happen either way. The far more winnable fight is over where the increased government revenue from the tax increases go. Which could easily be directed towards the tiny number of rural people who absolutely need a vehicle but are too destitute to change vehicles without state help. Or public transport. quote:By year 10 over half of the fleet would already be on the brink of scrapping or already scrapped. Adding to which that such a policy would never happen in a vacuum and would be complemented for example both by policies decreasing incentives for driving and subsidizing transition of the fleet. So you've gone from "the old fleet will have been replaced entirely in 10 years" to "half the fleet will be replaced in 10 years". I'm glad you've gone off and done some further reading on the subject to educate yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:We do still have social housing but it has large waiting lists. The waiting lists mainly exist due to privatisation of municipal housing stock plus governments not building social housing to keep up with demand for decades now. Furthermore, in accordance with international treaties recognised refugees get to skip the waiting lists. Guess where people are focusing their anger at? Hint: it's not the government refusing to do it's loving job for decades. That's because people have internalized the austerity narrative that "we can't afford to help the poor". Working as intended, basic divide to rule stuff. Fascism is the ultimate end of ordoliberalism. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:So that paper I read is outdated now, cool. I wondered how long it would take. Also we're having the same problems with refugees getting in before Italians, and people are reacting predictably on the brown people taking ARE HOMES as opposed to the government not doing anything of use for 30 years (or being actively malicious, like the outsourced public housing zones in Rome turning out as non-places with no transit access, and often no electricity, plumbing, and residents being blackmailed into mortgaging for way above market value in order to actually get the houses they had the right to). Although, to be honest, the government being useless is the expectation, and it's not like large social programmes were ever on the menu. We have a recent similar case here in Trieste(Opicina area to be precise), ATER (public housing) assigned a house to a ROM family since their family income (ISEE) was too low (sure as gently caress, they don't pay taxes), so afterwards they moved all their clan campers/caravan in the flat park space and lo and behold car thefts/house incursions skyrocketed to the point locals are planning to either move away or torch them down as the police cannot do anything about these petty crimes. EDIT: It's very telling that europe falling into flat out nazism manages to get a post per week while a debate about something as mundane as fuel taxes manages to get tens of posts per day 
SlowBloke fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Due to a job change I have to commute pretty far right now. If fuel were to become excessively expensive I would certainly look at relocating or using public transport. In fact I would gladly live closer to work right now because commuting isn't usually something that you do for funsies. The trouble is that even though I have an okay salary I am not able to afford a house closer to work because house prices are again on a crazy hike. Public transport is very impractical for my commute. So you can totally squeeze more money out of me by taxing me more but it won't have any sort of effect on my behaviour. I wouldn't be surprised if it would even lock people into their situation by taking away the money they'd need for a house.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:Due to a job change I have to commute pretty far right now. If fuel were to become excessively expensive I would certainly look at relocating or using public transport. In fact I would gladly live closer to work right now because commuting isn't usually something that you do for funsies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Blut posted:I... don't think you have any idea what "inelastic demand" means. If prices going up by 10% results in consumption going down by 6-8%, as has happened in the real world in Europe to date with fuel taxes, then fuel today clearly isn't particularly inelastic. Thats an extremely good rate of return for government intervention. Okay I'm sorry but if you're not willing to concede a statement this stupid I think the two of us are kind of at a standstill and won't get past this.  10% tax 8% decrease (yes you said 6-8 but I'm going to be charitable here) You see how those two don't match, how there's a gap? That's what I mean by inelastic, the demand curve of this equation is tilted more upwards than it is towards the middle. For every 1 point of tax, you get 0.8 points of decrease in demand. Now remember what I tried to tell you before and consider who most of those missing 0.2 points are, the ones who could not adjust their consumption habits. Here, let me give you a hint: Blut posted:20% of France live in rural areas MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
It seems a bit late to worry about "excessively expensive" fuel when most western/central European fuel prices start at double the US average and easily reach triple. You're all operating quite significantly within a fuel-use-discouraging price regime. Your retail fuel rates would be around 0.40 euro per liter in the absurd scenario of total tax removal, if you need a comparison point for how much you already accept. If you're against discouraging driving via fuel taxation, surely you should be out there trying to repeal all of it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If you're against discouraging driving via fuel taxation, surely you should be out there trying to repeal all of it? That's stupid. Come on you can do better than that. If you're gonna troll put your back into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
SlowBloke posted:We have a recent similar case here in Trieste(Opicina area to be precise), ATER (public housing) assigned a house to a ROM family since their family income (ISEE) was too low (sure as gently caress, they don't pay taxes), so afterwards they moved all their clan campers/caravan in the flat park space and lo and behold car thefts/house incursions skyrocketed to the point locals are planning to either move away or torch them down as the police cannot do anything about these petty crimes. Just a few months ago in Rome we had fascist centri sociali out in droves to prevent a Moroccan family who was assigned public housing from actually moving in. They beat up the father and intimidated his wife and daughter. The police said that hey, what the hell can we do about this, thinking man emote? Not much as it turns out, the Moroccans were forced to relocate and find another solution. Also the police have started periodically clearing out occupied buildings that are hosting migrant families that have nowhere to go, making the housing shortage Rome suffers even worse, so it's all going to poo poo really quickly here  And I mean, what the hell can we even post about, beyond 'it sure sucks that Europe is going full nazi?' I kinda welcome the distraction from the constant depressive spiral by now to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:That's stupid. Come on you can do better than that. If you're gonna troll put your back into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
You're missing my point of contention then. It's not that fuel taxes are inherently bad, it is that there's a strong limit on what they can accomplish due to the implications for those with inelastic demand for fuel. You'd see me levy the exact same argument if we were discussing property taxes and VAT for foodstuffs. They're really good forms of taxation for raising revenue, but due to the fact that they can't be opted out of there's a hard limit on how how high they can go before someone feels pinched and comes knocking down your door. Fuel taxes in most EU nations are at that point or have been past that point for years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Destruction to the Macron regime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Destruction to the Macron regime. Even if the alternative is fascism? I swear, every time I see the news I want to scream "yes, things suck BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS MUCH loving WORSE SO SHUT THE gently caress UP!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Even if the alternative is fascism? I swear, every time I see the news I want to scream "yes, things suck BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS MUCH loving WORSE SO SHUT THE gently caress UP!" The current system is not stable. Socialists can't afford to be conservative trying to maintain what we have lest we be tied to the failures of the current system and go down with it. Yes things suck and what we need is revolutionary change or else things will get even worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
I could rant for days about the lovely housing situation here in Germany. We have a massive housing crisis with rents exploding and eating a larger and larger share of peoples incomes. The free market has failed completely and utterly to provide any kind of solution to the problem and is satisfied with just making GBS threads out small amounts of luxury apartments for upper middle class and rich people. Now, a recent study for the government(done by "economy experts")claims that the root of the problem is not enough market liberalization. The state should pull out of the housing market completely and instead subsidize private rents. The free market will then build large housing projects on the edge of cities where poor people will rent the overpriced apartments using those state subsidies. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I could rant for days about the lovely housing situation here in Germany. We have a massive housing crisis with rents exploding and eating a larger and larger share of peoples incomes. The free market has failed completely and utterly to provide any kind of solution to the problem and is satisfied with just making GBS threads out small amounts of luxury apartments for upper middle class and rich people. Hey we have that in Finland. Unsurprisingly, it just results in rents rising even more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Oh hey someone copy-pasted the talking points of the last 8 years of housing debate in Sweden. Remember kids, the market can never fail, it can only be failed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I could rant for days about the lovely housing situation here in Germany. We have a massive housing crisis with rents exploding and eating a larger and larger share of peoples incomes. The free market has failed completely and utterly to provide any kind of solution to the problem and is satisfied with just making GBS threads out small amounts of luxury apartments for upper middle class and rich people. Not to forget, our current minister for "Interior, homeland, and construction" is spending approximately 0% of his time on said building crisis, because he's too busy fearmongering about scary scary foreigners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Hey we have that in Finland. Unsurprisingly, it just results in rents rising even more. See also: London and the UK more generally. Have u guys considered doing a socialism instead?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The current system is not stable. Socialists can't afford to be conservative trying to maintain what we have lest we be tied to the failures of the current system and go down with it. Yes things suck and what we need is revolutionary change or else things will get even worse. But revolutionary change towards what? That's the one thing no one has ever been able to answer me. What is the blueprint of a better society?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:See also: London and the UK more generally. Have u guys considered doing a socialism instead? Nah more austerity seems like a better idea
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The current system is not stable. Socialists can't afford to be conservative trying to maintain what we have lest we be tied to the failures of the current system and go down with it. Yes things suck and what we need is revolutionary change or else things will get even worse. I mean, it's literally why our socialdemocrat party utterly failed and will finish imploding by the next electoral cycle. They took on the role of being 'lesser evil' in the name of protecting the gains made during the past 60 years and instead chained themselves to the sinking ship and passed increasingly rightist neoliberal reforms. We need a serious break, but I don't see any political entrepreneurship in effecting that. We had a left-populist party that tried to aggregate various hard-left currents in the country, but a. they got 2% on last elections and b. they already have split up already over some trivial disagreements and are about to have a long, protracted legal battle on the use of their political symbols.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I could rant for days about the lovely housing situation here in Germany. We have a massive housing crisis with rents exploding and eating a larger and larger share of peoples incomes. The free market has failed completely and utterly to provide any kind of solution to the problem and is satisfied with just making GBS threads out small amounts of luxury apartments for upper middle class and rich people. In general it seems all of the West is suffering from the discursive hegemony of neoliberalism. We really need to start competing on framing. Privatisation, pro-market reforms etc should start getting called based on what they are. Bribes. Handouts, Corporate welfare etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:But revolutionary change towards what? That's the one thing no one has ever been able to answer me. What is the blueprint of a better society? less racism, less money for the rich, more money for everyone else
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:But revolutionary change towards what? That's the one thing no one has ever been able to answer me. What is the blueprint of a better society? In case you are not being sarcastic: every larger city in Germany has a city owned housing company. These companies provide very high quality housing at a very low price(They basically rent at cost) They are extremely popular and waiting lists are so long that in can take many years to even get offered an apartment. But construction of new apartments has mostly stopped due to ideological reasons and lots of them were sold off during the 90s. Why not start expanding these companies again? Look, I'm not asking for the gulags back here. It's a small thing we used to do back in the 60s and 70s all the time. And it doesn't even cost the taxpayer anything ffs. Also, social housing. Yeah, it has its own share of problems but gently caress it's better than nothing cause nothing is what you get with the free market. People becoming homeless and sleeping on the street or in mass shelters. This is not acceptable under any circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Also, social housing. Yeah, it has its own share of problems but gently caress it's better than nothing cause nothing is what you get with the free market. People becoming homeless and sleeping on the street or in mass shelters. This is not acceptable under any circumstances. Well, there's the problem. Alot of voters in many countries seem to think it's kind of acceptable as long as it doesn't happen where they can see it. Or they think it's not acceptable in the sense that those people should be further punished for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:But revolutionary change towards what? That's the one thing no one has ever been able to answer me. What is the blueprint of a better society? One which lives up to our stated ideals. Dismantle capitalism and then simply start doing the things we always say we believe are important. We are the most educated generation in human history. Our technology is amazing. We have a vast pool of labour power. Let's start using these resources to make life better for those worst off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:In case you are not being sarcastic: every larger city in Germany has a city owned housing company. These companies provide very high quality housing at a very low price(They basically rent at cost) They are extremely popular and waiting lists are so long that in can take many years to even get offered an apartment. But construction of new apartments has mostly stopped due to ideological reasons and lots of them were sold off during the 90s. Why not start expanding these companies again? Look, I'm not asking for the gulags back here. It's a small thing we used to do back in the 60s and 70s all the time. And it doesn't even cost the taxpayer anything ffs. ^ exactly this. For me Genossenschaftswohnungen are part of a larger social housing scheme though. Social housing should not mean "dog houses for the poor".
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Even if the alternative is fascism? I swear, every time I see the news I want to scream "yes, things suck BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS MUCH loving WORSE SO SHUT THE gently caress UP!" You keep this absurd paranoia going and I have to ask, do you not know the presidential election is a head to head? Who do you think Le Pen could actually beat? who are these 26+% of voters who don't want to vote for a fascist but will settle for one so long as it isn't Melenchon? imagine how easily Le Pen'd be smashed against someone who wasn't somehow racist against Occitans and Bretons in 2018. loving hell, Macron beat her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:You keep this absurd paranoia going and I have to ask, do you not know the presidential election is a head to head? Who do you think Le Pen could actually beat? who are these 26+% of voters who don't want to vote for a fascist but will settle for one so long as it isn't Melenchon? I don't loving know. It seems that every single election these days is between an utter nobody and a racist fascist lunatic and people will go with the latter because "he/she will get things DONE", "it's time for a change!" or "he/she is just like ME!". And even if people don't want them, good old Russia is there to tip the odds. AceOfFlames fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Dec 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
dogboy posted:^ exactly this. For me Genossenschaftswohnungen are part of a larger social housing scheme though. Social housing should not mean "dog houses for the poor". as someone who knows gently caress-all about housing policy, what would be the larger scheme? caps on housing prices and/or property sizes? Heavy control of real-estate agents?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
double nine posted:as someone who knows gently caress-all about housing policy, what would be the larger scheme? caps on housing prices and/or property sizes? Heavy control of real-estate agents? If you're talking in general about housing policy, well, we have examples of programmes working quite well in the past. Sweden's Million homes, the UK's massive post-war council housing programme are two of them. Basically, good housing policy requires massive public investment, as housing is an extremely capital-intensive good, slow to produce, difficult to substitute, and very often subject to shortages. It also benefits from coordination with public planning since it is impossible to unbundle its characteristics into single items (ie a housing unit's location, size, amenities, access to mass transit and so on are a bundle you purchase all in one go) so it's better to integrate it into the existing urban structure. This of course is only possible if you assume that there should be a role for the public sector in housing, and goes out the window if you leave it to market actors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:House? House as in housing, but I mean home in general. I'm a proud Communist Urban High Rise dweller. Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:In case you are not being sarcastic: every larger city in Germany has a city owned housing company. These companies provide very high quality housing at a very low price(They basically rent at cost) They are extremely popular and waiting lists are so long that in can take many years to even get offered an apartment. But construction of new apartments has mostly stopped due to ideological reasons and lots of them were sold off during the 90s. Why not start expanding these companies again? Look, I'm not asking for the gulags back here. It's a small thing we used to do back in the 60s and 70s all the time. And it doesn't even cost the taxpayer anything ffs. Boy you'll love the Netherlands, where every bigger city has waiting lists exceeding a decade for social housing and buying a house requiers you to bid at least 10% above asking price.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:Boy you'll love the Netherlands, where every bigger city has waiting lists exceeding a decade for social housing and buying a house requiers you to bid at least 10% above asking price. Also every most smaller towns and villages. Also you can't make above €35k because then you can obviously easily rent for €1000+ on the market. Paying 40%+ of your take home pay for rent is reasonable and good and you should also be able to save up for a deposit on your house that you have to overbid by 10% while you are doing that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:Boy you'll love the Netherlands, where every bigger city has waiting lists exceeding a decade for social housing and buying a house requiers you to bid at least 10% above asking price. Just a decade? You should try Stockholm, last year the queue grew quicker than my queue points and we're getting closer to two decades for every rental property converted into condos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
We need to build more social housing, overall, but it's austerity is a much better sell for the rich people
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Clearly what Europe needs is some Lebensraum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Okay I'm sorry but if you're not willing to concede a statement this stupid I think the two of us are kind of at a standstill and won't get past this.  You repeatedly said fuel is a purely inelastic good, that raising taxes on it won't change consumption. So fuel taxes are completely pointless. But in the real world it responds to price increases, almost to a 1:1 ratio. Which shows that tax increases clearly do have a drastic impact on consumption, and are worthwhile from a behavioral change point of view. And also that you've never read anything on the subject. If you think fully 20% of the French population, 100% of the rural population, is too poor to cut down their diesel usage then you're either trolling or an idiot. A minority of France (under 20%) lives in rural areas. A much smaller minority (approx 3-5% of the French population) lives in rural poverty. And an even smaller minority of that number is both wealthy enough to afford a car, and their lifestyle requires a car to function. Its an absolutely minuscule percentage of the French population that you're trying to claim fuel increases are going to destroy the lives of. And, again, that tiny number of people can easily be helped transition (via scrappage or other schemes) with the large amount of increased government revenue that results from increased fuel prices. Do you have massive amounts of shares in Shell or something? You have an American-esque obsession with low fuel prices and the primacy of the car as transportation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Blut posted:If you think fully 20% of the French population, 100% of the rural population, is too poor to cut down their diesel usage then you're either trolling or an idiot. You're still not getting this. It's not about someone being too poor, it's about a significant chunk of their inelastic household spending getting disproportionally taxed. If their fuel consumption was elastic they'd just change, but these 0.2 points can't. This creates discontent, this creates opposition. I'm not addressing the rest of your post because you're not even arguing against me anymore, you're arguing against some straw-figure in your head. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Dec 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2018 23:59
|
|