this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
112 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3718 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Vice President Kamala Harris has rolled out several initiatives as part of her housing plan. She wants to incentivize builders to create 3 million units of affordable housing and develop a $25,000 housing credit for first-time homebuyers. Harris's housing goals have been widely dissected by the media, showing that the nationwide housing problem is top of mind for many people.

Harris believes that former president Trump has it all wrong when it comes to solving the housing crunch. In her Aug. 16,2024, political rally, she stated, "If his Project 2025 agenda is put into effect, it will add around $1,200 a year to the typical American mortgage. He's got it backward. We should be doing everything we can to make it more affordable to buy a home, not less."

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 75 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ayup, privatization is always a terrible idea!

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 months ago

It certainly doesn't help healthcare or education prices when you privatize them.

Privatizing an industry it's just another way to take something out of the public eye and turn it into a opportunity for the ultra rich to make more money.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Privatization and deregulation are the bread and butter of conservatives. Always works out real well for the owners while everyone else pays the bill.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's quite literally a core tenant of neoliberalism.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

You mean the part about the owners making lots of dough while everyone else pays for it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Always works out real well for the owners while everyone else pays the bill.

Ironically, there's a whole movement that directly fights that sentiment by deregulating the supply of housing. It's called YIMBY. When housing is a rarity, it's more expensive, so why not make more housing?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

When we deregulate we must be very careful. Sometimes it’s good like saying that residential and commercial properties can be next to each other. Other times it puts the coal plant next to the kindergarten. You’ve gotta be careful to not throw the baby out with the leaded bath water

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Yes, absolutely. My point is that some regulations are counterproductive, or just plain wrong... like redlining.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Privatizing anything will lead to higher prices.

The claim (which I think we should be comfortable calling a "lie" at this point) is that services provided by the government are almost inherently wasteful. Conservatives (it's always conservatives) believe that civil servants (our neighbors) are overpaid and lazy. They believe that top level bureaucrats don't have incentives for innovation and cost/waste minimization, and that top level executives in a for profit corporation do.

And the additional claim ("lie") is that commercial profit incentives de facto lead to improved customer (citizen) outcomes.

However, I've never seen any long term data that supports ANY transition from public to private leading to either better innovation OR internal performance OR customer outcomes. I've also never seen data supporting the reverse (converse? inverse?) contention that nationalizing something corporate leads to worse innovation, performance, or outcomes.

Just for clarity I'm not looking for "data" from kleptocracies, oligarchies, military juntas, or other non free, non democratic, arguably non market based countries.

So basically only NATO, maybe EU, North America, Australia, Japan, South Korea... And I bet such data doesn't exist (or exposes the lie).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

South Korea and Japan shouldn’t be on that list. Corporate oligarchy in systems like the chaebols

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 months ago

Privatization means a cut to services and profit is now the motive.

EVERY TIME YOU PRIVATIZE IT BECOMES MORE EXPENSIVE AMERICA.

Stop privatizing your power.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nationalized services do not need a profit motive.

I wish we could slap it through our heads that socialized systems are OK to be lossy. They are paid for through taxation. They do not need to profit off the consumer. Privatization reverses this. It defunds them and moves the cost to the consumper, implementing a profit motive.

There are few simpler concepts.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This has been argued for years with regards to USPS, but here we are 🤷 you're right, tho, services dont need to make a profit, they need to provide a service.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Honestly convincing the public that privatization is a functional solution to any problem is one of the biggest achievements of right wing propaganda and political action of the 20th/21st century.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

I agree totally and this is something I bring up whenever possible. Mixed results but worth it IMO.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

How about we don’t privatize anything. Ever again. But especially not things that have private competition like those. If you want a private bank use it. I’ll use my public or cooperative bank

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

Instead of making housing affordable they will make a 40 year mortgage the standard.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

It doesn’t even have to be direct costs. It could just be service fees tacked on to third parties like title search agencies, and those fees will be passed on to the consumers.