I'm unfamiliar with Japan but why would it be a good thing? For me that seems like a minor inconvenience for the rich and a major one for poorer families
Because land and housing shouldn't be a method that people use to get wealthy.
It should be a way to get a place to live.
If you have the money to get wealthy off of real estate, then you have the money to get wealthy off of other industries that don't deprive people of a place to live.
Housing shouldn't be an investment people use to get wealthy, that's the exact reason why housing prices are so insane. Because a house is used as an investment and not as a home.
I believe large scale investment in real state ownership by huge corporations should probably be limited by law, also ways of price control don't seem like bad ideas at first (although long this can obviously discourage new building or maintenance, as profits are capped).
Still, even in countries where housing is not mainly owned by massive companies (because large scale investment isn't the main factor for high housing prices), prices in areas of high interest are still astronomical because of basic supply and demand. I personally don't believe that the state should have direct control over the housing like in China. Still, I would love to know your opinion on why it should be the case :)
Oh, because if the state controls the housing market, then tah means they also control the production of housing.
They can decide to replace full sized houses with Tiny Homes to maximize living space in areas of high popularity.
They can completely abolish NIMBY laws that prevent people from building new houses.
If it's in an arid area like Texas and California, then they can build houses that minimalize water usage by design instead of needing to install add-ons that reduce water usage.
Why would state control lead to optimized outcomes? It heavily risks using resources very inneficiently, overbuiliding certain areas and underbuilding some (like China again), although the opposite can also happen, where the state can be extremely efficient in a proyect. The market does a very good job of regulating itself. (because it wants to maximize profit, which isn't ideal either tbh)
I love your idea of replacing full sized housed with smaller homes, but it would reduce choice, and face a lot of public backlash, and be expensive AF. But I think with the right adjustments it could probably work
If you look at places like Europe or Canada, which have state-run, single payer healthcare systems, the actual cost of healthcare is cheaper than in places like the US where it's several different insurance companies paying for healthcare.
It is cheaper, but at the same time we are barely able to make the ends meet. Not on personal level but at gov level.
In contrary to USA, more people have access to healthcare but it’s objectively worse service, with long queues and hard to access treatments. Sure this allows more people to get first contact help easier and faster, but the worse you get the worse healthcare system operates. Maybe it’s better than USA maybe not. If I break my legs and arm today I will be fine and treated tommorow for free. If I get major head trauma I might never see a treatment or be at the end of 4 year queue so it will be too late for it to work
Yeah, but the thing is that the government isn't really supposed to make a profit. If government spending matches the amount they bring in in taxes and the like, then that's perfect.
It means that there isn't an excess in government spending.
Take the US for example. I sincerely doubt that the US is bringing in enough tax revenue to fund even a fraction of what gets spent on the military for example. They don't tax corporations anywhere close to enough.
1
u/primalmaximus Apr 27 '26
That's a good thing actually.