Mit einem neuen Investitionsschutzgesetz will Bundesinnenminister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) die Voraussetzungen für Vergesellschaftungen genau regeln und damit erschweren. Mit dem Gesetz werde die Bundesregierung deutlich machen, „dass willkürlicher linker Vergesellschaftungs-Fetisch mit dem Grundgesetz nicht vereinbar ist“, sagte Dobrindt der „Bild"-Zeitung laut Mitteilung vom Sonntag.
They probably won’t be able to say “you can’t” but “if you do, these are the rules”. And protecting investment aka. guaranteeing property rights has the same constitutional rank as the expropriation here.
If a system prevents a fundamental purpose of society (food, housing, electricity, healthcare, education) from ever getting more efficient (which can be cheaper or higher quality) then the system has needs repair or correction.
I get wanting to equally value property rights and governmental needs but landlords should absolutely be illegal and outside the definition of property rights.
They are getting more high quality. People use more space, have better heating, more ameneties, a cleaner environment, better public transportation. The conditions under which most Germans, also Berliners, live are better than they were 50 years ago. You might find that a bad tradeoff and argue for an option with less quality, worse heating, less good public transport for an in turn cheaper price. You find that all around Berlin in Brandenburg.
To be clear, I’m not saying things are getting worse. I definitely think things are getting better. One of the ways things can continue to get better is ensuring everyone owns a home before anyone owns two. If the federal government prevents that to protect landlords, people who provide no meaningfully service and take from those that are less wealthy while naturally resisting improvement, then things will not be better in 50 years unless we oppose those that would benefit from our suffering.
I am not convinced that having everyone his own home is gonna make people better. If you look at internationally the rate at which people live in their own home and net worth per capita are negatively correlated. Germany is an outlier in that it is comparatively poor and has more renters than owners.
I’m not sure that correlation is actually useful as in a endstate capitalist society the more money per person that exists in the system the more imbalanced that money is distributed and thus you would assume as things got wealthier it would also get extracted from the working class. You can see this in all developed nations, but the US is a great example that I’m familiar with. They’ve made nothing but more money and more stuff more efficiently since the 1930s but as taxes on the wealthy were erroded and regulations kneecapped and Monopolies allowed (or defended) home ownership has plummeted. That’s not because homes got better, it’s because a postal worker in 1960 could afford their home and family without issue, and today a one income household is a fast route to poverty.
No, I don’t like that correlation as an indicator of progress which I think is kinda what you’re implying. But I guess I could debate if everyone having their own home is a good thing, there might be something there. On the flip side I don’t think there’s value in debating if everyone owning their share of control over their housing. Everyone should absolutely control the state of their personal housing. The easiest way to achieve that is everyone owns their home/flat.
It or does not im negative causation. It does, however, makes it harder to argue that owning ones house (as opposed to other assets) is a nessecary step towards a prosperous society.
I don’t see how you can argue that. Homeownership rate is at 65 % right now right where it was 1977 and higher than in the 60s. See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
Yes, it was a bit higher in between, mainly when every NINJA got three mortages which ultimately caused the financial crisis.
So by no definition of the word the rate has plummeted.
Everyone should own assets. If it needs to be an immobile one I am not so sure about. Also you can have either growing property / portfolio values or affordable howsing, not both.
There are strong renter regulatsion, long term leases. And let’s not forget people who do own their home but little else, the so called house poor. Sure, they have every right to change the state of their dwelling but zero liquidity to actually do so. Some of those would be better off renting.
Idk who’s arguing society is more prosperous in the housing department now than it was 60 years ago. You’re conflating a very large set of metrics with one paired correlation. I would argue housing is getting undeniably worse for most people as a percentage of their net income and the quality that amount of money buys them.
So even if you include the rates of home ownership, you need to account for the size of those homes, the quality of those homes, the debt those people are in (as you said, “house poor”). Ownership is not the single end-all metric, the real metric would be the power people have over their housing which I have no doubt is at a nearly all time low - hence why everyone rents, why those rentals are worse and smaller than they’ve ever been, and more expensive then they’ve ever been.
I’m explicitly arguing that housing should not be an investment. Housing should be affordable, that is a fundamental goal of society. We don’t have stocks in food such that food should get more expensive every year. You might have stock in a company that makes food, but not in bananas because they’re inherently perishable - exactly like housing.
Everyone should be wealthy, I can agree with that. And you’re right, it doesn’t have to be a house. But they have to be sufficiently wealthy that they have direct and meaningful control over their housing situation or it will breed contempt with the system - as we’re seeing around the world in the developed countries.
I’m not talking about the right to change their housing, I’m talking about the power to which you e separated as the right and the liquidity. I’m talking about the combined power, so if you tell me they have one but not the other than for my intents and purposes they fail the necessary check that demonstrates if a society is working or not.
I am arguing that owning one’s house does not at all tell you anything about the overall net worth or the quality of the dwelling. Think shack owners in some favela. Conflating the two leads to bad policies. See the US financial crisis where everyone could lend more than they could afford, which could in theory be beneficial but lead to a real estate bubble.
And yes, wealth gives options and is desirable, probably also lessens contempt. Destroying property values by taxing it arbitrarily does cheapen the property, just doesn’t make it more efffordable for the lower half of the income distribution.