why such stuff should be allowed in the first place,

Because we have a market economy. We can switch to planning, but that has its own disadvantages

why should ordinary folks have trouble getting apartments just so that some rich fucks can try to make profit.

They should not. It’s market manipulation that we don’t have enough apartments. With different zoning laws or more plots to built, there would be enough apartments.

speculators throwing money around, artificially increasing property, land, and construction prices.

Tax empty housing, or housing in general, and speculation will disappear.

Still the rent prices you can achieve with that are nothing like you see on the open market.

In which way? Why are those apartments not on the open market?

It is irrational to expect rational behaviour from people.

That’s also why people shouldn’t be forced to be rational. The Sovjet Union was forcing people to be rational but people weren’t happy.

Broken window

I tried to make sense with this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

Now it’s clear.

Die AfD fordert die Abschaffung des ÖRR. Daher sollte der ÖRR kein Interesse am Erfolg der AfD haben.

Ein unabhängiger, neutraler öffentlicher Rundfunk ist dringend notwendig.

Wie kann das sichergestellt werden?

Who would join a club to do UBI in a private way? Pay a fraction of one’s income into a pool that is distributed among all members.

The disadvantage would be that everybody would expect each member to work at first. In the long run, the club could try to have capital to reduce the need for work.

If that gets big enough, UBI for everybody would be possible without having to create a political change.

Bismark turned private health insurance of the unions into a service by the state to weaken the unions, as well as introducted retirement pensions.

It’s funny that the unions and regular citizens keep that power in the hand of the state instead of organizing it themselves, independend of whatever party is in power.

Now there is the threat of killing in the US. Look at Iraq, the killing has been there for a long time.

Insults give you attention but so do boobs. People cannot care because they struggle to survive.

To make them care give them something to build. Time spent on anger about Trump is less time building a social support network.

That’s the “speculation” part.

A surplus in supply would threaten them with an infinite time to wait for their target ROI.

the solution is regulation in the form of taxing vacant property

fully agree

If you don’t want all the power to end up with whoever happens to have money you gotta stomp people with money at some point or the other

Fiat currency. Public banks can hand out credits to whomever wants to build with a solid calculation.

If you don’t want all the power to end up with whoever happens to have money you gotta stomp people with money at some point or the other

You tax them. Of course only possible if the masses are not manipulated. Drones and AI, stomping would only be possible for something like 5 more years. Afterwards there is not much more power left.

120 Euro fridges turning into 150 Euros fridges

More like 120 Euro fridges leave the market and 150 Euro fridges cost 200 Euros.

Building things in a solid way is a different thing than blinging it out: Don’t push designers to get rid of the fourth bolt for the attachment plate, don’t save fifty cents by buying cheap lubricant

I want to live in a society where people choose the solid products on their own. Everything else calls for trouble down the line.

May increase GDP in the broken window way but who the hell wants that.

I don’t undderstand that.

The killing is hypothetical in the build up phase so people don’t take it serious. The insults are real and could be used to show the difference.

Oder es ist anders rum. Die AfD verspricht, die Korruption in der Politik zu durchbrechen. Die Wut über die Korruption ist inzwischen so groß, dass die Wähler bereit sind, die braune Gefahr ähnlich einer Atombombe ins Spiel zu bringen, da alles andere ausgereizt ist. D.h. die Leute checken die Gefahr und wollen die Drohung.

Konkret hier, die AfD könnte nicht die Abschaffung des ÖRR fordern, wenn dieser gut wäre.

The main bottleneck for the housing market is land in areas where people want to live. People have to pay whatever they can to live close to their work. If demand is so big, of course only housing with the highest margins is developed, which is the luxery market.

The speculative capital is flowing because the high demand keeps prices stable. If there would be a surplus to the point that the speculative capital doesn’t find a buyer when selling, prices would be much lower. The backing for the high prices are the real tenants though who want to live where they work.

Appliances don’t need the speculative capital to become expensive. It is enough if there is less competition. Then customers can’t ‘move’ to other products and have to pay whatever is demanded.

If the requirements stay limited to an extended warranty then things can remain competitive but I doubt that the regulations will end there. This should take cheap Chinese brands off the market that don’t have a support network in Europe. That’s good for nature, but it removes the cheap options off the market which will allow the market to rise the prices for the cheapest durable goods.

It’s not so much that you become a fascist but that third parties see you body shaming and it stops being possible to argue that fascists are bad because they do body shaming or make fun of other minorities.

Manufacturers are not off the hook. If they are not reliable then the expected runtime is low and their monthly payments go up.

the European economical policy is ordoliberal

Without Britain, it could become more ordo than liberal.

We don’t have to prevent this regulation. However we should prepare ourselves to prevent the appliance market to become like the housing market. Citizens are unable to make a change there. That shouldn’t be ignored when other markets are regulated more.

Most voters rely on the campaign communications which was not equally good. Is it too far fetched to think that Remain was intentionally bad?

Since most people don’t listen, and there are still a lot who know, why not join forces? Unlike Cassandra, there is no need to just wait for fate to happen.

It could also be a warning against importing foreign workers to build ambitious projects because social cohesion could collapse.

(This is not meant as an argument against a pluralistic society)

Why not outcompete them with better offers?

Wenn der Papst nicht anbietet, dass katholische Osterfest auch z.B. im Wechsel zu verlegen, ist das wohl eher Provokation als ein ernst gemeinter Vorschlag.

Dabei sind die Ostervorschriften schon seltsam, wenn Gründonnerstag am jüdischen Paschafest war, aber die Berechnungsregeln für Ostern nicht die gleichen wie für das Paschafest sind.

That’s a good argument but doesn’t fit the situation. The bad buying decisions can be corrected with market mechanisms. Allow people to finance the products over the entire expected lifetime. Then high quality goods are cheaper and people will choose them.

Some people speculated that Britain left the EU because they believe in markets whereas many EU countries don’t. This could be one of many decisions that put the EU onto a different trajectory. We will see in 20 years if the EU can stay on top of its regulations.

The difference is using violence to create good outcomes vs bad outcomes.

Good entirely depends on your perspective. Conservatives also use violence to create what they perceive as good outcomes.

The difference is that fascists use violence to supress everybody who is different instead of being inclusive and accept differences.

Ridiculing differences is a step into the dark side that shouldn’t be made.

I wouldn’t mind switching to a society that is built on altruism. My point is that the EU is not an inherent benevolent government. These regulations will be abused and I believe that there would be less abuse if we spent the resources on infrastructure that allows the consumers to make better decisions.

the EU should create infrastructure that allows consumers to compare products objectively

forms of market failure. Because that is how it works out in the real world

I think that it is better to improve the markets and minimize the market failures instead of trying to regulate everything.

Everything has to be checked by institutions if consumers are kept ignorant whereas competent consumers do that work for free.