| ▲ | jbjbjbjb 14 days ago |
| Housing and energy could both be dirt cheap and the money would still go to rich people. The problem from a living standards point of view is the cost which is due to a lack of supply. Get the cost down and poor people would be able to save and buy assets and become wealthy. |
|
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 13 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > People aren’t able to save because their money is spent on housing and energy ---- > Housing and energy could both be dirt cheap and the money would still go to rich people. ---- So the working class is being forced to give the wealthy all of their money. On prices set by the wealthy and coupled with policies encouraged by the wealth. And if the wealthy just stopped being so greedy and took a small hit, everything would be fine. And the wealthy aren't the problem? |
| |
| ▲ | jbjbjbjb 13 days ago | parent [-] | | My problem with “it’s the wealthy” is it is just nebulous and not thought through - typical populist rubbish. Whereas the stuff I’m talking about like the planning and energy infrastructure are very direct and would actually make a difference. We could revisit the green belt, upzone areas in London, set much larger minimum house sizes. We’re miles behind on energy infrastructure and infrastructure is just more expensive here because we allow the cost paperwork to get into the hundreds of millions. If you look at France they have cheaper energy, cheaper homes and more housing supply and much much more people owning second homes. So again it’s not the rich it is our crappy policies. |
|
|
| ▲ | WOTERMEON 14 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Buy from who? If costs would be cheap, who would want to sell assets? |
| |
| ▲ | Jensson 13 days ago | parent [-] | | If costs would be cheap then the owner bought them for cheap as well so wouldn't need to sell for much to make profits. The deadlock today comes from people needing to sell for much since they are bound up by massive loans, but that could have been avoided. |
|
