Forum Post: My case for nationalizing the housing industry
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 26, 2011, 10:58 a.m. EST by MrMiller
(128)
from Sandy, UT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
You're probably going to think that I'm absolutely crazy here, but I'm starting to think that it would be a good idea to nationalize the housing industry. If you think about it, money does, in fact, still need to be payed into rent and housing to coordinate where people live and limit competition for certain areas where people live. Otherwise, people would all want to live in the best place. If we nationalized the housing industry though, we could cut out many, many middle people who don't do much except collect on rent and make a killing while at it, and at the very same time, excess money that gets payed could be payed essentially straight to the government and provide a ton of revenue to fund programs straight back into our communities. We, of course, would have to find a way to load people back into jobs that produce and share the workload better, possibly by implementing a system where money is payed digitally, just like I am payed at work already. In that regard, we could forget dollars altogether and head straight into a digital economy. So much of our economy is already digital. We should stop focusing on money flow and instead focus more on if people are productive and pay them accordingly. I think overall that it's fundamentally wrong for people to have leverage over land anyway, since the Earth is a common heritage to all. What do you think?
I think you are right, most people will think you are crazy. You're talking about changing the mind set of an entire culture.
[Removed]
The housing industry needs to be separated from government entirely for they are the ones responsible for the housing crisis in the first place. It was an amendment signed by the President that lowered the standard for getting qualified to buy a house and if they failed the banks would be bailed out with our tax dollars.
Funny thing is those middle people own and have invested into those properties, That is the "don't do much" they do. So on top of roads, schools, and every other government building, the "efficient government" would be responsible for every roof repair and plumbing problem in the country. Someone could write a 100 page paper about how idiotic this is. Kid when you start paying bills maybe you will get a clue.
Ok, so maybe I'm not so serious about this, but I'm just trying to reform my opinions and views, so please stop being so aggressive. Yes, I do understand that people invest in real estate, but yet again, some of the richest people in the entire country and one of the richest people I ever knew got rich off of real estate. At some point, as you may have realized, people are simply rich enough to flat out buy land and rake in even more profits. It may be possible someday for someone to buy a whole state and become a gazillionaire off the revenue. All I'm really trying to do is highlight the fact that people own far too much land in many cases and don't deserve it. Do you agree or do you not? Please respond without being a bigot.
And I'm not for big government really. What I am for is a better way of allocating money, since that seems to be a problem, as you may have realized. That's why our system is broke. We all are breaking the system together by not realizing that every single purchase we make sends money to some place very specific. I don't think we can continue to function as a country where people do not understand this principle, yet we are for some reason still limited by this system of capital flow. That is what I'm talking about - capital flow.
[Removed]
How do you know they don't deserve it, who is anyone to say that an individual can't own as much land as they can afford. The US government owns the majority of land in this country and does nothing with most of it. Real estate is valuable, I own real estate and I am not wealthy, most people I know who own land are not wealthy. Two reasons the one man owning a whole state would never happen is 1. the public owns most of the land in all states 2. Competition would not allow one person to own everything, this is the laws of economics.
I'm not sure about housing, but I would definitely do energy. How is it we have private corporations in charge of providing this country with electricity. They could turn it off any time they want, not likely, but it has always made me a bit nervous.
Like in the recent storms in the northeast, some people didn't have power for weeks, and I'm pretty sure there were no fines against the company. I know things can get in a mess sometimes, but can you imagine living without electricity for even just 3 weeks?