All of the chatters being crazy. Someone shoulda asked "what if I lose my job and get hooked on drugs" and Vaush replies "you will be given housing in an area that can support your recovery" instead of the current system of "you asked for it, live on the street bum, and I don't want to even see you"
And some dumbfuck chatter will respond with: "so the state will kick me out of my second summer home to turn It into acommodations for people strugling with mental health? And then relocate my family free of charge into another suitable place of our preference where we will live for free? Thats a dystopic tyranny Vaush"
they do that with dogs (and cats if it's possible), so why not with humans as well? too bad not many pple advocate for that type of human suffrage over animal suffrage :/
Vaush's Nazi relocation program: You are no longer a college student and have a year to find a new location and we will help you. My Chad American Landord's program: the lease ends the Day of graduation and you need to be out of the house at end of day.
Or living in on campus housing where you pay insane amounts of money to have no private space and have no rights and get kicked out for a month out of the year for various breaks and have to pay extra to stay if you cant go back to your family and have stricter rules during the time you spend at your place during break
Chat was really on one. It's fine to just say, I like owning my own space or whatever, but they were definitely deliberately misinterpreting him and trying to make it sound like cheap, decommodified subsidized housing isn't a preferable alternative to shelling out 40% of your paycheck a month on just the rent.
Except the ownership of personal property is socialism. Communism is the next step that removes that right. Maybe learn the difference between private and personal property.
@@JoviaI1 Socialism isn't one step before communism, it describes a larger set of political ideologies. Communists are socialists, anarchists are socialists, social democrats are socialists. The framework where you have personal property and a tightly regulated market would be a social market economy, something that many European countries and to an extend the US were doing before the 80s.
@@veryde_3356 That's not what I said at all. There is a clear dividing line between socialism and communism and that is the ownership of personal property. Socialism is a spectrum of ideas up to that point. Also no, as much as people want to lump Communism in with socialism, the fact that there is a clear dividing line makes them separate. With that logic you could say that capitalists are socialists if they believe every poilicy up to the point of owning private property. Even more, you're just plain wrong. Anarchism is a completely separate category of ideology and can fall on either side of the capitalism-communism spectrum. Please, don't confidently talk about things you clearly don't understand yourself.
@@JoviaI1 You know that land is a means of production :) Socialism would decommodify housing, in fact every socialist platform and movement aims for it. They also always have some kind of bureaucraft locally to manage people's relationship with it too :) What do you think socialised housing is you numbnut
Eh it's pretty dystopian if you really think about it. Like today if I own a place I feel an attachment to it and make it my own. He keeps saying that it's already possible to get evicted and moved by force today, but why are we trying to replicate that in a system which is supposed to be better? The underlying problem is that people need stable and safe shelter. You can basically achieve the same goal by eliminating the ability to own more than one property.
@@AoDAzrael The problem is that you are assuming that you have no recourse here. You can just get a roommate. Take on boarders. Do any number of things. Why assume that these common practices wouldn't exist under another system? The whole point is that housing is a limited resource. Population is going to keep increasing. We cannot build a house for everyone. This is undesirable for a number of reasons. If you become emotionally attached to your six bedroom house or whatever and by some means you become its sole occupant, you're certainly free to live out the rest of your days there. Just not alone. Make efficient use of a limited resource, that's all that's really being demanded here.
@@rainbowkrampus but that's incorrect, population is not going to keep increasing. Most if not all developed (and even many developing) countries are falling well below the replacement rate for births with population levels being propped up by immigration. The real problem here isn't that we're running out of space overall, it's that we're running out of space in dense urban areas where economic activity is centered. Making sure that housing is most efficiently distributed in Fresno isn't going to solve the housing problem in the Bay Area, or San Diego. If you are talking about knocking down single family homes in the middle of San Francisco to make larger multi-unit structures then I agree that makes sense... But notice that few people are complaining about apartments and condos. The emotional heft around the topic of housing affordability always swings around the single family home.
@@antonioscendrategattico2302 Vaush isn't even a reformist either, he's sensible enough to acknowledge that the left doesn't currently have the numbers for a violent revolution or whatever, but he's never claimed that he believes that socialism can be achieved solely through working within the legal boundaries of liberal democracy.
I guess most Vaush viewers are here mainly because of the trans stuff, because Vaush always argues more fervently with chat when socialism is the topic.
Social issues are always easier to grasp. It's considerably more intuitive and satisying to say "Don't be evil toward group X" than to get into the weeds on economic issues. Not to do purity testing BS, but I'm not even sure how many self-described socialists in Vaush's community even know what socialism is, it always feels like they're overwhelmingly very socially progressive socdems or liberals.
Yep I wasn’t aware how much his demographic proportionally shifted towards liberals 💀 It’s a bit crazy because he’s just as logical when it comes to socialism as any other topic. As a long time viewer the vaush pipeline for me has been a tankie to an anarchist… I just guess recently he’s attracted liberals, hopefully he can bring them towards the left.
Yeah it's just a self selective effect. Vaush's brand is basically the gay debatebro, and his vote blue no matter who arc turned off a lot of his more radical audience. So what audience do you end up with? LGBT liberals.
@@StrayChoom I suspect that what is going on is that he has attracted a younger crowd. They're not so much liberals as they are politically incoherent with a tendency towards the default political mode of our time.
@@rainbowkrampus sounds like a distinction without a difference to me :D although if they're young, the probably aren't particularly stuck there either
Except its literally not sociallism, it's communism (the most extreme left position you can take). Sociallism is a lower form of communism where private property is abolished but not personal property. Also, please learn the difference between private and personal property, because it's quite apparrent you, and almost everybody here, do not know.
I am literally staying in hotels for upwards of $400 a week, and have been denied by two rental companies who own half the town because of “poor rental history” no specifics other than that. Oh yeah and they steal $25-$30 per application you have to submit.
Vaush: "I think my system would be much better than the current one, while still accounting for the finiteness of physical existence." Chat: "hmm yes but have you considered [problem existing in the current system]?"
I love it when you try to make a simple point about why landlords are bad and housing should be a right handled by the government and people invent 20 insane hypotheticals attempting to prove why being unable to afford a roof over your head is a good thing actually. EDIT: the further I get into this video the more unhinged chat becomes
There are WAYYYYY too many arguments on the internet that are just: *makes completely normal statement that applies in 99.99999% of cases* "Oh yeah, what about THIS hyper specific counter example?!?!?! Did you think about that HUH????? "Then we can figure out a work-around for Greg when we get to tha-" "Do you want Greg to DIE?????????????????????????"
@@Hello-nm1ysTruuuuue. I think it’s just because people naturally have really strong gut-reactions to things they don’t like, but a lot of the time they don’t have any actually relevant arguments against them, so they just spout their most anxious/unrealistic hypotheticals as a way to oppose those ideas. The main objection that chat really had was just “it’s different and scary, I don’t like it.”
He didn't even say "by the government," he just said that it should be done by some kind of organization that is motivated purely by the desire to provide housing, rather than by a profit motive. He left plenty of room for it to be very decentralized rather than being run directly by the government.
The problem here is that in the real world where I am a worker who does not own real estate, this sounds good. But in my imaginary fantasy world where I am about to be an extremely rich real estate magnate, this sounds downright horrific. So I’m undecided
@@airlesscanvas6425 yeah his version will never work. But forbidding and force selling of private and public houses hoarding in high request zones should help restore the prices at a reasonable levels and finally people can work for their money and put it in the real economy, instead of sitting on houses properties and keep jacking up the prices no matter the state. YOu can own a house in high request only if you live in it at least half of the year
Unless his positions have changed, I was under the impression that Vaush was for coalition building: i.e. "I don't agree with everything you believe in, but we agree enough to work towards our shared goals and then part ways". In such a community, disagreements, especially in regards to edge perspectives, is not only expected, but guaranteed.
@@spectilia as a leftist you can disagree within the limits of surpassing capitalism, agreeing with whomever wants to keep capitalism ongoing is almost impossible in a broad perspective
This right here, that's what a fing Hotel is for. Like, I live in Poland, the idea of owning a summer house sounds ludicrous to me, (partly because our sea is cold, and our mountains are short (and that sounds like some East-Asian insult) so more often than not our holiday destinations are outside of Poland) we just rent rooms in a hotel/resort.
@@IndependentObserver i just hate being in any type of water. lake, river or sea. my eczema won't even let me enjoy a warm shower during winter time, never mind a hot shower for added steam during cold and lfu seasons TTwTT so a water-centric summer house is not only irrelevant to me, it's a waste of money.
@@gamakujira64e23 Because housing requires labour to both build and expand, making it a right won't change that. Considering you are taking the profit incentives out of housing you would need to give a reason for people to actually build them and maintain them regularly. Considering how many industries and jobs that would effect that amount of taxes required to provide decent conditions (not even consider quality one) would completely fuck the economy.
@@airlesscanvas6425 taking away the profit incentive is good because it shifts the incentive of building housing towards making people’s lives better, and that generally leads to better outcomes for people. Also, in what way would increasing taxation make the economy worse?
@@airlesscanvas6425Taking away the profit incentive doesn't also take away the incentive of a place to live. Also I think it's fair to assume the taxes you'd pay to guarantee housing for everyone, including you would be FAR LESS than it currently costs to rent, much less buy one house just for you and/or your family.
As with anything else there's nuance, and I think people (chatters) aren't satisfied with an incomplete answer. To that I say: tough. Be more creative. If summer homes are important to one's vision of a future then imagine a system in which they can still exist in some form. It can be done, brains are well known for the ability to imagine things.
@@panfried_egg He did give a solution to what summer homes would be. Short term rentals like hotels. Summer homes aren’t that important and he’s not building a utopia he’s explaing what decomodified housing looks like. And short term rentals like Hotels dont really have anything to do with that.
You know that meme talking about rich people that goes like: People who grew up with money will look at you and say something insane like "Do you ski?". That's you fuckers with your summer homes.
@@coderamen666 better system - no one owns a home they don't live in. apartments are still an option, but so are houses, with needs/interest in maintaining/household size determining what people are given.
If you've ever had the misfortune of renting a property run by a rental company, you would understand that the government couldn't possibly do a worse job. 30% of income going to a company that will never fix or replace anything, tries to fine you or blame you for anything wrong with the house, increases your rent by the maximum legal amount every single year, etc.
Landlords are increasingly becoming petty little tyrants leveraging their properties like a weapon against renters. This is especially true for mom and pop landlords. Cap rents across the board, enshrine squatters rights to start. Make not signing a formal lease a criminal offense as well. I nearly took my last landlord to court
@@ThatWolfArrowYes landlordism is quite literally a feudal concept. Renting out property and recieving a paycheck for the privilege of working for you is literally no different to serfs working the land of their lord.
I mean... in a liberal context that's literally the goal right? Everyone should eventually become a homeowner. Renting just out of college is supposed to be a temporary condition.
Won't someone think of the summer homes?! How can I be expected to live without summering in Cocoa Beach every year like a true proletariat worker?? /s
Okay, what if it’s a summer home in the middle of nowhere near the Finnish-Russian border? Why must Vaush insist that only one house can be assigned to one person in his system?
@@krkngd-wn6xj It's not. Do you truly think it's okay to be confined to one location for years on end? Russia is a vast country, there is no shortage of empty space--especially if most of said space is conveniently uninhabitable during the winter, and is at it's best during the summer. USSR had decomodified housing and they managed to make it work. You and everyone else here, including Vaush, needs to stop thinking about this as an American.
@@beanbrewer Because housing requires labour to both build and expand, making it a right won't change that. Considering you are taking the profit incentives out of housing you would need to give a reason for people to actually build them and maintain them regularly. Considering how many industries and jobs that would effect that amount of taxes required to provide decent conditions (not even consider quality one) would completely fuck the economy.
I mean, that's just classic leftists arguing from the worst possible outcome. Same as arguing "but what about grape" whenever you bring a pro-life argument. To be clear, I'm pro-choice, but it's still _literally_ the same argument. To be even more clear, what I'm arguing for is better arguments. _Do Wrong, Right_ (TvTropes), and all that. "But what about special cases" should always have the same answer: "use special measures, if normal systems won't/shouldn't fix it." Not everyone is the same. Shocking, I know.
I love the people who have probably never lived anywhere but with their parents complaining that this system of housing that would be the cheapest they'd ever seen, and free up so much of their income for literally everything else, ends up having to use force in events where people lie under contract, and aggressively refuse to be moved by anything short of police force. These people unironically make this complaint whilst simultaneously living in a system where your landlord will call the police to throw you out into the street if you miss a rent payment, or if a new company buys your lot and doubles the rent one day.
so abolish renting, not home ownership. Vaush wants to turn the government into landlords, which while cheaper, also hosts a litany of other problems, least of which is that it is ripe for abuse
@@pewpewpandas9203 but then you can’t easily move and you’re locked in a certain area if everyone owns a house. Because all available houses either have to be vacant, or you have to barter with homeowners to buy their house. If you banned renting that would do little to affect housing prices, if anything that just worsens the issue. Because a sizeable proportion of people in the west rent & affording houses is literally an impossibility. For example my girlfriend works in a nursery, for around £20k a year. She already spends half that on rent a year. With her salary for all housing in any city in our country, it is impossible to save enough money to even afford a deposit for a mortgage for even an apartment in a city. Let alone the actual mortgage payments. Which cost about 2-4 times as much in comparison to renting. She would HAVE to marry someone to ever have a shot at home ownership, working in her profession. And then if you ban renting, it’s still a commodity that can be bought and sold, so it renders half of the point moot. There would need to be some form of price controls, and even if there was, private home ownership would still be the worse option in comparison to council housing. My main point is liveable, convenient, affordable & reasonably priced housing. Most people want or need to move at some point in their lives. Whether it be for university, to follow opportunities, or because they don’t like where they live. Or if crime is too high in there area, it can spook some people to move too. Renting is effectively the only easy way to do that. And also reasonably priced is being…
@@pewpewpandas9203 But then you can’t easily move and you’re locked in a certain area if everyone owns a house. Because all available houses either have to be vacant, or you have to barter with homeowners to buy their house. If you banned renting that would do little to affect housing prices, if anything that just worsens the issue. Because a sizeable proportion of people in the west rent & affording houses is literally an impossibility. For example my partner works in a nursery, for around £20k a year. She already spends half that on rent a year. With her salary for all housing in any city in our country, it is impossible to save enough money to even afford a deposit for a mortgage for even an apartment in a city. Let alone the actual mortgage payments. Which cost about 2-4 times as much in comparison to renting. She would *have* to marry someone to ever have a shot at home ownership, working in her profession. And then if you ban renting, it’s still a commodity that can be bought and sold, so it renders half of the point moot. There would need to be some form of price controls, and even if there was, private home ownership would still be the worse option in comparison to council housing. My main point is liveable, convenient, affordable & reasonably priced housing. Most people want or need to move at some point in their lives. Whether it be for university, to follow opportunities, or because they don’t like where they live. Or if crime is too high in there area, it can spook some people to move too. Renting is effectively the only easy way to do that. And also reasonably priced is being…
i feel like people strongly objecting to this haven't experienced exactly how awful renting can be. the profit incentive destroys any chance of it being a quality experience. i'm sure that local governments would fuck up managing socialized housing in all sorts of ways but it would still be sunshine & daisies compared to negotiating with these ghoulish management companies
On the contrary, I think it's a reaction to the idea of renting. Most people who rent don't do so by choice, and would much rather own the place they live, given the chance. So when Vaush comes in and proposes _all_ housing be government-owned, and you have to regularly renew a lease with the government on your housing to keep it, and they might decide not to renew that lease because you don't fit their standard for a desired resident anymore, they just hear 'rent under a new name'. Doesn't matter if it's cheap/free, or if the terms are much friendlier than rental contracts, there is an instinctual dislike of the idea that someone else controls the place you live, can tell you what you can and can't do with it, and can evict you should they decide to. (And yes, Eminent Domain is a thing, but the vast majority of people will never have to deal with it.) I was honestly kinda surprised by Vaush's complete lack of comprehension on why people hated the idea so much and kept comparing it to renting because 'you don't own your home' and 'you can be forcibly removed from your home for any number of arbitrary reasons' are the exact reasons people hate renting so much.
. I agree. One has to understand that people want to own the home they live in and have the control over it to fix it up to like it. Vaush's idea feels too close to you will own nothing and like it or else to people and they do not like it.
@@yautl1 Vaush is a life long renter I think. He's also on the spectrum, and probably can't understand the concept of having an attachment to land / one's home. He is, however, correct in saying that it's probably better for a society if no private citizen owns land / property. It would suck, and you're right that it just feels worse than owning a place outright, but that is a privileged position. Plenty of people never have owned land, and never will under the current system. To crate an equal society is to forego those privileges.
Hot take: I think humanizing more systems and making them more ethical is a good thing, and capitalism is bad. I know, I know I'm the craziest socialist.
"Why they aren't using drywall in Europe?" what the heck chat is talking about? 😂 We _are_ _using_ _drywalls_ in our buildings in places we don't have to put load-bearing walls. What _isn't_ _popular_ in Europe are those wooden modular houses you can easily put together. We like our brick houses, thank you very much.
not to mention when the bricks can be better engineered for insulation and prevent termites. still, might wanna check with how housing is done in the Middle East when it comes to AC-free air circulation, 'cause we're totally gonna need that at the rate the planet heats up X3
Yea, that was fucking weird lol, I am European, and my summer job was drywall laying for years. It's usually newer developments, where you use it on non-load bearing walls or as the inner layer with insulation between it and the load-bearing pillars.
Hell! We already have to manually file taxes that'd be the perfect time to update the government about your lease too!@@aidankeys8534 Because I would absolutely love my version of a "landlord" being an ELECTED OFFICIAL vs some of the absolutely vile vindictive people I've had to deal with as landlords. Seriously had my previous landlord get up in MY face because my MOM who was also a tenant in a different apartment and lease, had 3 shitty events happen to her in a month -- got covid and while sick and feverish fuckin fell and shattered her shoulder blade, lost her job BECAUSE OF COVID, and my dad petulantly quitting his job because he wanted to be a big dumb baby. And this bitch had the audacity to tell ME I was being selfish when I defended my mom and her situation when this bitch was whining at me that she couldn't EVICT MY MOTHER. Having the person in charge of that being ELECTED sounds like absurdly more accountability than we've got in our current system.
i recently read a story of a couple that lived in my city and were evicted over the course of 3 DAYS because the landlord wanted to sell the property. Vaush having to defend himself against chat who was upset by the idea of being given an entire year to find FREE housing was mind numbing 😵💫
vaush, I will say, this was a horribly flawed take about moving out when the residence no longer fits your needs when others need it more I would simply invent spatial folding technology and fold space into itself to build a second house on the same plot of land. Like modded minecraft XD
I live in CA. If I wanted to live in a studio apartment less than a hour from my workplace, I would not be able to afford it. My GF, before we moved in together, got evicted from her apartment so that the corporate landlord could renovate it and then put it back on the market for a higher rent. So when Vaush started talking about decommodifying housing I was like YES! I would much rather tell a city employee, hey I work at this address and my GF lives with me, could you find us a place near my work?
Okay I'm sold on this idea alone by the idea that houses are locked-out/recommended based on what's available in the area (jobs related) and the individual needs. So much better zoning organization could happen which means better chance of moving towards everything is a 15 minute city.
This is so stupid. I swear, Vaush could say "Every summer, you will be flown to a place of your choosing where you will be pampered for a week straight by hospitality workers and this wouldn't cost you a dime" and people would be up in arms about "being black bagged by the government and taken to an undisclosed location" I almost feel like they are _deliberately_ trying to misunderstand his hypothetical, utopian picture of an ideal (or at least better) world.
Sometimes reality just doesn't work out how one anticipated. There was actually something like state-distributed vacation in former East Germany. People would apply for it and get some vacation destination assigned by the state. It could very well happen that you spend your holidays in the neighbouring town a 15-minute drive away from your home. That happened to my grandpa's cousin for example. Of course this isn't dystopian in any sense of the word. It's annoying at best. The thought that other people tell you what to do and then do it worse than you would have done for yourself is just uncomfortable I think.
Vaush: "In some areas, under certain circumstances, you would have to move if you don't meet the requirements anymore. You could get a five year lease on an apartment with the requirement that you work within the area. If you lose that job and don't have another job in the area, you'll have a year to move somewhere else, maybe just 15 minutes away from that original apartment. Same might apply to *massive mismatches* between the size of the house and how many people live there." Chat: "I'll be forced to move every five years?! Vaush wants families to be torn apart because the house is for four people, but only three live there anymore?!"
@@aidankeys8534 Exactly. You could even have standards that grant people the right to live in the same apartment or house if they've lived there long enough, even if it's not optimal land use. Like if a couple has raised a family in one house, they've lived there for 30 years, they'll just get the right to live there for the rest of their lives, even after their children have moved out. Things don't need to be optimized to some crazy degree, but current problems, like people who work in the city having to travel into it from the outskirts need to be addressed. People who clean and maintain the city should have the right to live in that city.
Oh no, not moving every 5 years! It's not like I've been moving every 2-3 years for my entire adult life because the rents get hiked up until the place is no longer worth the price
@@Hello-nm1ysThere's A LOT of castle in France and a lot of then are cheap as fuck cuz they are falling apart due to lack of maintenance for centuries (the nice castles are extremely expensive though)
a lot of what is being described here, waiting lists and local organizations to organize housing of different scales for different people - small apartements for students, as an example, then going up to larger apartements and small houses as oyu get older and begin having a family - is already how it works with certain systems here in scandinavia. Only, of course, we still pay rent and such, so its commodified. But the basic system being discussed already exists and works decently well.
In Vienna more than half of the population live in city-owned housing. It works and the rent is not as bad as in many other European capitals. What exactly would be the problem to broaden this to decommodification and eventually include all housing? It's weird to see such animosity towards public services in Vaush's audience.
Americans barely understand what public services even are. Most of that stuff is privatized and the stuff that isn't is crippled by legislators so people beg for privatization. But also, Vaush didn't do a great job of explaining that _everyone_ will own _all_ of the housing. 🤔
The reason youd want to own your home rather than rent is that if hou ever decide to move, you now have a home you can sell to pay for the new one, you essentially trade in your old house for a new one. If you rent, you pay forever, at least when you own, at some point the paying stops. Notably, none of that would matter if homes didnt cost money in the first place.
Not only tjat. I love making my spaces mine, and every couple of years landlords are more anal about even nails in the walls. When you get weird looks for wanting to put shelves anywhere in the house, change the distribution of the kitchen, or any slight modification to the property is a pain in the ass as a renter. Luckily my dad owns our house and I have been able to mess with the walls of my room and the living room, but in the last apartment I was renting it was so restrictive
My favorite vaush videos are the one where he spends an hour constantly slapping chats wtists and having to rexlplain a relatively simple concept they refuse to understand
In mainland europe where there is a decent amount of good social housing availability it's actually culturally weird to want to own your own home. Social housing is similar to unions in that it only needs a meanful chunk in state ownership to actually exert significant market pressure on rentals. In the UK social housing is priced based on local wages for the area and the profit used to go into local council services, multiple European countries copied this model prior to thatcher. Current in the UK due to the social housing shortage from thatcher 'help to buy' councils rent from the private sector for a loss.
Only issue I have with this model is "modifications" to the house If you own it, you can say demolish the wall, or run a wire in a wall to add an outlet. If you rent it it's nearly impossible or up to a landlord, some commodities like AC can be added if landlord thinks it will benefit them long term. Or even much smaller issues like drilling a wall to hang a picture. Would you need to file a form for it with government? And then government contractor comes and patches it? And if you ruin the apartment you'll be fined for it? Landlords take deposits for this reason but paying deposit to government sounds off to me. Would it come from taxes? Everyone would pay safety deposits for every single apparent on an off chance someone will mess up theirs?
You actually _will_ own the dwelling, but so will everyone else. So upgrades like adding an outlet are unlikely to upset anyone. If you knock down an entire wall, you may need to cover the cost of replacing it. The state would provide you with a heat pump, but you'd probably be responsible for patching holes in the wall. 🤔
I can't imagine the complete decommodification of housing, but implementing housing utilities for population densities over a certain threshold seems reasonable.
i fucking hate people who treat houses like investments but i have the autistic urge to constantly make major modifications to my house like painting it new colors or doing cool workshop things and idk to what extent i could do that if i didn't own the home, so "renting" in a decommodified system in the way described at the beginning sounds unappealing to me personally. not that that's any argument against the broader economic points of course
Yeah was also thinking about this, my parents are homeowners and they just love to modify things. Like sometimes i’m gone for a week and they just removed a wall, or added a wall to make a new room. It’s of course not a big enough reason for not helping countless people get a good home, but it’s still something that would be quite sad if it couldn’t be done anymore. You probably could ask for permission but i don’t think my parents for example would enjoy it anymore if that was needed and I also think that the state will just say to fuck off if you ask them for approval for a new project every month.
but why would the government care if you modify your home? It's not like you're going to hurt its resale value, there is no market. you would have to meet building codes and zoning regulations but we already do that
Basically what @undrimv00d00 said. By decommodifying housing, you're eliminating the single largest limiter on why anyone would care about you modifying your home, which is property resale value. Properly implemented, the lease would basically give you the right to do minor modifications completely freely and only having to receive a permit for modifications that, for example, change the qualifications of the home, for example you couldn't just add a floor on top or redraw the floor plan without running that by the commune.
I will always remember what George Carlin said I think in his last stand-up: "Personally folks, I believe that if your rights came from God he would've given you the right to some food everyday, and he would've given you the right to a roof over your head. God would've been lookin' out for you."
It was actually really nice to talk on some actual leftist/socialist theory as we don’t get to go that a lot, and of course chat’s brains start melting 😅
There would still be homelessness in fact there would be much more homelessness than before. People regularly fled East Berlin into the West for a reason.
@@airlesscanvas6425how? Lots of housing is sitting vacant. If you didn't have to afford it, and got it assigned then I don't understand how we would have more homelessness
27:20 Sound passing through the walls isn't a drywall issue, it's because your American walls are made out of paper. If you actually insulate it, then it will block sound, and you can stay warm during cold winters, and cold during summers.
1:24 I actually _loooove_ the way Indian and Pakistani women dress. A nice sari, or that other garment that's kind of like a tunic/dress(?) worn with pajama like trousers and a long flowing scarf can be _extremely_ flattering on a woman. It can make the younger women look like Disney princesses or something, and make the older ones seem distinguished and almost majestic. I don't want to romanticize it to the point of being maudlin (yeah, too late probably) but traditional south Asian woman's clothing is so much more appealing to my western eyes than the mass produced "athleisure" wear that's become dismayingly common in America.
@@CHAOS80120 Ah, thanks, that's good to know but I was actually trying to describe a salwar. (I just looked it up.) "they usually just wear a dress shirts" I've noticed that in Pakistani dramas. The male leads all wear white business shirts. And whenever the characters are talking excitedly about something, they'll always say just one or two brief phrases in English instead of Urdu to put extra emphasis on it. lol
@@hadronoftheseus8829 I'm Sri Lankan and most everyone here speaks mixed. Like they'll use a English word here and there while speaking in their native language.
@@hadronoftheseus8829 This is actually pretty common here in Southeast Asia, where people would speak in their native language but drop a phrase or two in English, or use an English word. The reverse also happens, where sometimes locals would converse in English but then substitute in a native word here and there.
The cultural difference here is massive. As a Finn, when you say summer home to me I think of a small cottage by a small lake, thats smaller than the room I see vaush stream in. Though it also has another small building that is about the same size, but thats the mandatory sauna. You chop wood to warm your cottage and drink beer while watching over the lake and waiting for the sauna to get warm. The main things to do in the Finnish "Mökki" experience are chores, small improvement projects and nothing. I want to enable that experience, not a waterfront mansion with airconditioning and all modern commodities.
Yep, I love the idea of having a second home (after getting the first lol) by a lake or beach in a small town or whatever. But I always imagine a small cabin or even just a site to park a car and put a tent. See the stars, drink a cuple of beers, make music/draw/write, dance, anything. If I want ti be in a airconditioned box with perfect lighting, I would go to a mall
Something Vaush didn't really touch on (yet, I haven't finished the video) is how this would help city planning. If you know generally what demographics of people live where, you can more efficiently design the city to suit their needs. So areas with a high population of college students would have more bars, night clubs, fast food places and public places to hang out in. They would also need more public transport and less parking space since students are unlikely to be in a position where they own a car and even if they do they'll be spending a majority of their time around the university so they won't need one as often and can instead use public transport.
i agree. socialism doesn't make the world perfect, but it literally only has gains over other systems when handled properly. sure, you may have a boring job, but at least you (and tens of millions of americans) wont have to live paycheck to paycheck, and wont need to pick up multiple full time jobs to live. it sounds kinda dystopian in a way, but it'd be kinda nice to live as a cog in the extremely efficient system lmao
Basically, we're seeing a class divide play out in real time in the chat. People who are against it are probably landowners who benefit from the current system. People for it are probably renters who are adversely affected by the current system. Redistribution of resources means making one side very unhappy for the sake of the greater good. I guess the one point of frustration for me would be, what do you do when you have a hobby that requires a lot of space? Like if you enjoy tinkering with cars or woodworking, or in my case 3D printing? I want a larger house because I want a basement / workshop to work on my projects. Under Vaush's proposal, where everyone is assigned a number of rooms / space based on their "need", do I just have to suck it up and deal with my small apartment because I don't technically NEED a workshop? Would people just not be allowed to have space-intensive hobbies?
@@CarbonMage Honestly that sounds amazing. I definitely wouldn’t mind living further away from a city if it meant I got an extra room for my cats or for a hobby. As long as I wasn’t in the way of someone else who needs that space more but like you said, I could just live in a low demand area. Would I prefer to live in the city? Sure! But sometimes you have to weight your options. Idk what the chat is on about…. If I knew I had somewhere to live guaranteed no matter what I’d legit cry from happiness.
I believe in housing decommodification but this was explained so poorly. People shouldn’t be forced to move unless there is an EXTREME disparity between the property and the person(s) living there. People still need to be guaranteed the right to stay in a property for a long time until they want to move. Nobody will support decommodification without those guarantees.
It seems that chat had some issues with Vaush's take, but because they were unable to express it properly, Vaush couldn't address it adequately, and the stunlock continues. In this case, I think chat is trying to say that plenty of people do not like moving around. A lot of them want to lay down their roots in a place - maybe they grew up there and love their neighbours, or perhaps they just like living there. So Vaush's idea of constantly having to ask for lease extensions from the government every few years does sound restrictive.
It would only be in extremely high demand areas, but I know what you mean. Compared to what we have now though, I'd say the current set up is just as restrictive if not more when landlords can increase rent as much as they like and you are forced to move anyway.
25:03 As a German, if you think a privatised system is inherently more competent than a state run one... Let me tell you about our railway system.................. (about 30-50 minutes later, if you're lucky)
DB wurde Privatisiert, musste Gewinnne erwirtschaften, deswegen sparen und das ist der Grund für schlechte Bahninfrastruktur und damit den Verspätungen.
This plan would also create a whole bunch of government jobs to place people in the right homes, as well as moving. I’d like to implement a system where people can ease into new houses when two people switch places so that they can get to know the neighbors and the local goods and services. This would also hopefully give both parties time to make sure they’re happy with the move.
The problem is that this isn’t just a simple corporations vs people like it is for private health care. Millions of private citizens own homes and rent them out because it’s kind of the only tool given to a middle class person to raise their financial status. Something like 60% of Americans own a home. So, you aren’t just up against corporations when it comes to decomodfying housing, you are also up against millions of regular people. I really believe everyone is fantastically undermining how difficult it will be to get public support on that. This will actually require a violent revolution to occur if you want to decomodify housing
@@julianbell9161 we should have massive limitations on this. there's definitely ways to do it that are fair. it should be based on the demand and needs of an area. in a place with a lower population, where the need isn't so high, then maybe people should be allowed second homes. But in high-density areas no one should be buying a home they don't live in. All they are doing is making a passive income off of someone else's need to live. If we got rid of that system, then it would bubble up, and the people who are losing those secondary sources of income would benefit overall too. It wouldn't be an easy transition, but it's one we are probably going to need to make.
@@bulletsandbracelets4140 This, can't recall if it was France or one of the Benelux countries but essentially the government made it so that if you aren't consistently staying at a property, you pay ridiculous taxes on it to the point that you are either forced to sell or forced to accept a reasonable rent. It's really that simple, no one is asking for a Proletarian Revolution here, just the ability to have a roof over their head.
@@AgrippaMaxentius I think that could be a good first step, and that's honestly the most we can probably realistically hope for. But I think it's worthwhile to give more credit to the idea of decommodifying it entirely. The cost to administer those extra penalties, the ways people would find around them, the logistics of how a "reasonable rent" is determined depending on where you are - all of that just seems to make things more complicated rather than less. I like decommodified housing for the same reason I like universal basic income. Everyone gets a payout. Everyone gets a home. You don't have to prove you deserve it, you don't have to meet any guidelines to keep it, the government doesn't have to maintain arbitrary tests or inconsistent standards that need to change over time anyway. People just get what they need because they are human and have the right to baseline conditions.
I'm all for housing decommodification because a market system of housing is actual garbage at properly allocating shelter, but I'm curious how place attachment plays into the "relocate to best-fit needs" model that Vaush is proposing. People live in certain places for so many reasons beyond the economics of it (though they play a huge part), and one of those reasons is place attachment. I've spoken to folks that have moved *to* food deserts simply because that's where they grew up. Granted, I've only gotten through half of the video, but I didn't want to forget the thought so I'm it writing now. If he addresses it later, I'll edit. Edit: So it seems he's talking mostly about high-demand areas, but even so the place attachment question still applies It's a very powerful part of local and neighborhood cultures. I get it's sort of part of a standard life-cycle now in America to move out when you reach your 20s, but I think alongside housing decommodification we should also incentivize multigenerational housing, where folks aren't expected to move out of the family home. It's both more efficient land-wise, and also socially beneficial.
Im pretty sure for this case you would commission the gov housing administration that overaees that food dessert area and say "What propertys are available here". Seeing as its a food dessert location there probably wouldnt be much demand so probably a bunch of places would be open and you would just move there. From what i understand, the system Vaush is talking about would mainly effect more populated locations. Rural places with little demand would almost always have a location available there and if it didnt you could patition the governemt to build one or build it yourself. For those who live in a suburban house 30mins away from a city center its likely that little would change for you as no one is in despirate need for a house like that. All you would have to do is, according to Vaushes system, is go to the housing authority every 5 years and say "nothings changed on my end how about yours?" And they would say "well there is no need to move you because there are still a lot of open houses in your neighborhood. See you again in 5 years." And send you on your way.
@@thedungeoneer101 Yeah, that makes sense to me for those rural areas that there'd be low demand. I figure to address the place attachment issue of high-demand urban areas is to have the authority recommend nearby locations in the case of single people, couples/small polycules, or the elderly. I think we could consider development that favors multigenerational housing, since I think part of Vaush's system plays off of the current life cycle of moving out in your 20s and having a small family in the building. Multigenerational units could help prevent people from being moved frequently to make space for newcomers since people would be expected to move back/stay in one place to care for their family, like people had done historically before the concept of the nuclear family took hold.
@@linuslarson493 That's a good point. Since most of the housing under his system would be based on need, no need would be higher than that of a large multigenerational family living in one house.
I need someone to edit Vaushes voice clips here over that scene in Up with the contractor. Serious thoughts, I'm not fully opposed to this system. If there was a national referendum to start this plan in its entirety, I'd vote for it. And I don't think my criticisms of this plan would hurt me, specifically, but I do have concerns. First of all, this does centralize power in the government. You can say the police do too, but that argument only really works if you don't have problems with the police as an institution. Historically, libertarian socialists have held up decentralization as a value, that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. If we give the state full ownership over housing, that opens up a lot of pathways for dogwhistle politics or simple incompetence. A businessman can discriminate on race, capitalism as a whole only discriminates on wealth, but the state can say, "oh, you work in social services. Sorry, but we're going to move you out of town, and this has nothing to do with the fact that black people are more likely to work in social services and vote against us." Or you could get one terms worth of politicians saying, "immigrants are taking our welfare," and now immigrants are on the streets. Or maybe a bad politician runs the program incompetently, and just ends up crippling it. I also take issue with the idea that you can't be secure in your own home. If you believe in alienation as a convept, you have to understand the concern. I mean this in two ways. I dont like the idea that you can, due to circumstances you agreed to but didn't have a choice in, always be at risk of losing your home. Vaush says that some housing probably won't be in demand for others so youll probably get to keep it. Thats not enough. If there is some low demand housing which its likely no one wants, maybe there could be a protection that, if you wish, you get to live there until you choose to move or die. I think this is likely doable. My other concern is I dont like the idea of your home, your first place, being tightly controlled by outside forces. Vaush has criticized both capitalism and democratically planned atate socialism as being alienating to the worker because you can't control your circumstances, you cant solve issues relating to your work easily, and that is spirituality damaging. I feel like this should be more damaging when it comes to your home because its your home. We have different words for a house and a home because of what control over a home means for us. If someone wants to build a vr arcade in the basement, can they? Can they build a secret door bookshelf, can they switch out their doors? This, I feel, is one of the advantages of a housing coop. Housing coops are able to make third places they craft the world around them in a way that matches the constituents will. I think this also demonstrates the value in decentralization. Housing coops can much more effectively address the wants of their constituents because its something seperate from the government, it can act on its own initiative, you might be able to leave it and join one thst better suits your interests if its within your desire. Vaush acts like these asks are unreasonable because renters already are alienated from their own homes. But renters aren't even the majority. 65% of Americans are homeowners, and we expect culturally that people will eventually have that privilege as they age. I'm sure its within our capabilities to make it so that everyone who wants a home can have a home. I dont really associate distrust of the government and a wish for people to truly be in control of their circumstances as exclusive of socialism, personally i thought that was the point. But if these are actually liberal points, then i guess im a liberal. As i said before, I'd prefer the policy to what we have. I think there are problems to address, I think we could probably easily make it so that the people who want to live forever in their house or modify it can, if they are willing to sacrifice other benefits. Maybe you could buy certain housing from the government if you wanted to modify it greatly, and you could only sell it back to the government if you wanted to modify your housing. I think this system could very easily be maliciously weaponized compared to our current system (which hurts people, but only for profit) but I think this system would be worthwhile to test.
I'm more in favor of the idea of "abstract decommodification" - "food" in the abstract is decommodified (food stamps for all) - specific foods (caviar?) aren't decommodified - "housing" in the abstract is decommodified (there are homes available for free in certain locations) - specific homes (large ones, mansions) aren't also why not make mansions and fill them with people a mansion has like 30 bedrooms 30 people could totally live in a mansion
A lot of people probably don't want to share kitchen spaces with 30 odd strangers. That's a fine suggestion for existing mansions but building more might not be in demand.
@@Hello-nm1ys The fill them with people that don't need their own kitchen space, like for example old folks. Maybe add in a service element of a few cooks, cleaners and nurses because they still need food and help anyway and the cleaner and nurses can also live there.
I agree that this is infinitely better than the current rental system, but I don't see any reason that we couldn't have the majority of properties have lifetime allocations. Property shouldn't be an investment, but I want to be able to customize my home, build a workshop, make the space my own, and invest time and effort into making my home perfect for me, safe in the knowledge that I'm not going to be removed, or at least that I'm not going to be removed unless there's the sort of massive upheaval that would require the use of eminent domain. I'm the sort of person who likes to make things, and wants to shape my environment with my own two hands, and that's just not worth doing if you have to reapply to continue living in your home every several years. Even in downtown areas, I see no reason we can't just make more and more dense mixed use downtown areas. A downtown area is just as wonderful for an old retired person, who can maintain their independence much longer by being able to get to everywhere you need to go in just a few minutes walk, even if they've gone blind and can't walk very far, and therefore can't drive a mobility scooter or even make longer commutes by public transit. Downtown is good for everyone. The only thing I can possibly think of where it would even potentially be worth relocating people is student housing, which I mean fair just treat that like dorms but you don't have to leave during the summer, and very large 3+ bedroom homes in very dense areas. And even then, there aren't that many people who are going to have families big enough to need something like that in the first place. But even a two bedroom apartment in the city, if a someone's settled in there, and their kids have move out, and their spouse either died or divorced them, and they want to keep living in the house they've been living in and just have a guest bedroom or a study in the spare bedroom, then I don't see what the problem is, even in a dense urban area.
A system like this would be a dream for me. I've already come to terms that I will likely never own a place of my own and will be, at best, moving from place to place at great expense.
"you want to make housing free for everyone? Nuh-uh if I can't have my own summer home that I use once a year for a week then I don't want any of it and I'm pro capitalist housing aka homelessness and people suffering with high rents" -a chatter, probably
Decommodification can be achieved through the tax code right now without any challenge to any court system. I am a tax auditor and a member of a union. I know everything about this. Perhaps Vaush could have me on sometime?
Warning: Leftist Post Below. Read More at your own risk. I do like the idea of there being government run apartments (eg rentals), and I also agree that home's should not be investment properties, but I disagree completely with the idea that all living spaces should be government owned and operated. Price controls on rent and home costs seems like the easiest solution to this (in conjunction with building private housing). For instance, my aunt and uncle own a home that they have put a lot of time, effort, and money into making nicer because they wanted a nice place to live for the rest of their life. They didn't make it nicer because they wanted to sell it, and they enjoy living in the area. This seems fine to me, although would probably be unallowed under Vaush's proposal because drastic changes to living spaces doesn't seem like a viable thing under such a system. However, under a price controlled system, they'd still be allowed to improve their home as much as they want, it's just that if they decided to sell it, they wouldn't be able to expect much of a return on investment. I think the main problem with Vaush's proposal is that he forgets the main reason to be doing any of this, which is to maximize human happiness and minimize suffering. The problem with the current system is that people either don't have a place to live or are spending too much of their money on their housing. While his system adequately addresses these flaws, it also has the side effect of limiting people's enjoyment and attachment to the place that they live. Renting is the main problem in the current society (if everyone was paying off a mortgage for their living space rather than renting, I'm sure they'd be a lot more happy about paying the price), yet Vaush's solution to this is to force everyone to live under renting conditions (although with the notable benefit that renting is free). Honestly, I've always liked the idea of abolishing rent, making it so that even if you're living in an apartment, you own that apartment much like a homeowner owns a home. The building itself (made up of many apartments) would then be owned and operated much like a worker co-op, with tenants in the building voting on building wide problems, rules, and regulations (such as no pets or other things, more structural regulations would obviously be under the purview of the government, as is the case for home ownership). I also feel as though this solution is much more politically viable and reasonable than what Vaush is recommending. As for multiple home ownership, I would place a severe tax on owned homes that remain unoccupied for more than half the year (over the limit of 2 homes). This means that people can still own multiple houses (because some people live in 2 places for multiple months for work, family, etc.) but any more than that and you are placing a severe burden on society and are taxed as a result. On the other hand, if the home is occupied, then no tax is placed because it's no longer representing a burden. Overall, I think that the biggest problem with Vaush's idea is that it is too utopian. The government is already a powerful enough entity to begin with, and giving it more power over people's lives is a bad idea. Governments must be created with the understanding that they will be corrupted at some point in time (as is human nature), so it should have only as much power as we would be willing to grant to a corrupt individual. This is the whole philosophy behind the checks and balances system (although that is currently failing, kind of proving my point). Even if Vaush became dictator for a few years to perfectly implement his solution, afterwards returning the power of governance back to the democratic process, the system would eventually fail, and giving a corrupt political leader the ability to determine where people live and under what conditions is absolutely too much power for them to have. This is the authoritarian undertone that chat was observing but unable to put into words. Very weird that the libertarian Vaush would fail to notice this.
Take a boat tour of your nearest beach and look at all the houses littering the coast line. Then remind yourself that all those houses cost 3+ million dollars each, and the people who live there are the people who don't want affordable housing built near them, because having poor people like you living near them will drive down their property values. Once you've done all that, revisit the thought of decommodified housing and see if your opinion changes
This would be great me speaking as a black agave person born and raised and currently living in the hood I grew up in. This would make it easy and affordable for me to leave the drab area I've know all my life. I do live 20 minutes for my work currently but living in an apartment I don't own that I had to use my own money and resources to make livable in place of saving to go to a better place . This sounds like a win to me.
as someone who is set to inherit a very expensive house in the middle of bumfuck nowhere from family idgaf about, I am 100% ok with housing being decomodified, take it away gov, Ill sell it to ya for 50% off even
Ahhhhhh, Im dying from the arguement with chat. Holy moly what vaush describes would be massively better then the system we already have in pretty much every way.
Yeah Vaush wasn't kidding when he said his chat needs to touch grass and that they don't act nice towards him. The "no offense vaush but your favourite colour is brown >:(" is such an out of pocket comment when vaush was making a joke about how America forgot colours, and how he likes how colourful Indian clothing is.
Things that should be free to access for all: 1. Housing (Same for all, but if you work harder, you can get a bigger and better one) 2. Foods (Basic ones only. Luxurious foods should still be charged) 3. Electricity and Water (Within certain limits, then charged after that) 4. Healthcare (Completely free, no limit)
Rent would be “use” and not “rent”. Rent infers payment and private ownership. If ownership goes away so does rent so a new term would need to be applied.
Vaush I've got to say that you've brought this on yourself. I don't remember a stream of yours in *months* unashamedly advocating for socialism or even researching related topics, so it's no wonder that you end up with an audience full of libs. A very constructive follow-up to this stream would be checking out the Viennese public housing system, which is a model already existing in the world that has a lot of popularity with its constituents.
That's the Vaush cycle for you. He lures in some liberals and normies with hot topic general discussions and then rinses the community with stuff like this, so that the worth while ones stay to learn more socialism in time. Like looking for scraps of hold in the sand.
vaush explains the housing situation in china for twenty minutes and then argues with chatters who intentionally misconstrue what he’s saying because they’re so afraid of touching grass for and hour and fifteen minutes.
Evergrand been collapsing fir the last 2 years. Another problems is people have paid for the apartments that are now e.pty shell, deteriorating and never going to be habital. Many people are going to lose a lot. The TEMU setup is to try and keep the people emplloyed to stave off any uprising by producing low quality items to export. They are probably doing this at a loss. The are a few good channels to get info on problems
Alternative title: My community doesn't understand what the word 'decommodify' means
hello brother
He just wants Singapore
All of the chatters being crazy. Someone shoulda asked "what if I lose my job and get hooked on drugs" and Vaush replies "you will be given housing in an area that can support your recovery" instead of the current system of "you asked for it, live on the street bum, and I don't want to even see you"
And some dumbfuck chatter will respond with: "so the state will kick me out of my second summer home to turn It into acommodations for people strugling with mental health? And then relocate my family free of charge into another suitable place of our preference where we will live for free? Thats a dystopic tyranny Vaush"
Ikr
they do that with dogs (and cats if it's possible), so why not with humans as well? too bad not many pple advocate for that type of human suffrage over animal suffrage :/
@Echo81Rumple83 sorry lol I know you didnt mean that but it's really funny reading this and picturing cats and dogs voting
Vaush's Nazi relocation program: You are no longer a college student and have a year to find a new location and we will help you.
My Chad American Landord's program: the lease ends the Day of graduation and you need to be out of the house at end of day.
Or living in on campus housing where you pay insane amounts of money to have no private space and have no rights and get kicked out for a month out of the year for various breaks and have to pay extra to stay if you cant go back to your family and have stricter rules during the time you spend at your place during break
Chat was really on one. It's fine to just say, I like owning my own space or whatever, but they were definitely deliberately misinterpreting him and trying to make it sound like cheap, decommodified subsidized housing isn't a preferable alternative to shelling out 40% of your paycheck a month on just the rent.
@BallstinkBaron wasn't living in a campus dorm. I was in an apartment downtown and the lease ended the day of graduation.
@@dudewithnovids12 I was saying that's your other option besides your situation
Straight up. Also something like this would be great for traveling workers. ( If you are a traveling tradesman) For example.
"What did you think socialism meant? Vibes? Essays? Papers?"
Except the ownership of personal property is socialism. Communism is the next step that removes that right. Maybe learn the difference between private and personal property.
@@JoviaI1 Socialism isn't one step before communism, it describes a larger set of political ideologies. Communists are socialists, anarchists are socialists, social democrats are socialists.
The framework where you have personal property and a tightly regulated market would be a social market economy, something that many European countries and to an extend the US were doing before the 80s.
@@veryde_3356 That's not what I said at all. There is a clear dividing line between socialism and communism and that is the ownership of personal property. Socialism is a spectrum of ideas up to that point.
Also no, as much as people want to lump Communism in with socialism, the fact that there is a clear dividing line makes them separate. With that logic you could say that capitalists are socialists if they believe every poilicy up to the point of owning private property.
Even more, you're just plain wrong. Anarchism is a completely separate category of ideology and can fall on either side of the capitalism-communism spectrum.
Please, don't confidently talk about things you clearly don't understand yourself.
@@JoviaI1 yeah pot calling the kettle black I suppose.
@@JoviaI1 You know that land is a means of production :) Socialism would decommodify housing, in fact every socialist platform and movement aims for it. They also always have some kind of bureaucraft locally to manage people's relationship with it too :) What do you think socialised housing is you numbnut
The craziest part is one half of the people disagreeing are saying it's TOO Good and not possible, but the other half are saying it's dystopianly bad.
discourse about Socialism in a Nutshell
Eh it's pretty dystopian if you really think about it. Like today if I own a place I feel an attachment to it and make it my own. He keeps saying that it's already possible to get evicted and moved by force today, but why are we trying to replicate that in a system which is supposed to be better?
The underlying problem is that people need stable and safe shelter. You can basically achieve the same goal by eliminating the ability to own more than one property.
@@AoDAzrael how about being able to own rural low demand properties but having vaush's ideas applied anywhere with more demand than housing?
@@AoDAzrael The problem is that you are assuming that you have no recourse here. You can just get a roommate. Take on boarders. Do any number of things. Why assume that these common practices wouldn't exist under another system?
The whole point is that housing is a limited resource. Population is going to keep increasing. We cannot build a house for everyone. This is undesirable for a number of reasons.
If you become emotionally attached to your six bedroom house or whatever and by some means you become its sole occupant, you're certainly free to live out the rest of your days there. Just not alone. Make efficient use of a limited resource, that's all that's really being demanded here.
@@rainbowkrampus but that's incorrect, population is not going to keep increasing. Most if not all developed (and even many developing) countries are falling well below the replacement rate for births with population levels being propped up by immigration. The real problem here isn't that we're running out of space overall, it's that we're running out of space in dense urban areas where economic activity is centered. Making sure that housing is most efficiently distributed in Fresno isn't going to solve the housing problem in the Bay Area, or San Diego. If you are talking about knocking down single family homes in the middle of San Francisco to make larger multi-unit structures then I agree that makes sense... But notice that few people are complaining about apartments and condos. The emotional heft around the topic of housing affordability always swings around the single family home.
Mf’s will see stuff like this and think “yeah Vaush is just a radlib”
I mean if they just spent their time consuming Vaush's chat, yeah I can see why they would come to that rtrded conclusion
It's because they don't know what that word means and think that liberal and reformist are synonyms.
@@cdvideodump Consuming Vaush's chat? That doesn't sound like it would taste good
VAUSH BASED
@@antonioscendrategattico2302 Vaush isn't even a reformist either, he's sensible enough to acknowledge that the left doesn't currently have the numbers for a violent revolution or whatever, but he's never claimed that he believes that socialism can be achieved solely through working within the legal boundaries of liberal democracy.
I guess most Vaush viewers are here mainly because of the trans stuff, because Vaush always argues more fervently with chat when socialism is the topic.
Social issues are always easier to grasp. It's considerably more intuitive and satisying to say "Don't be evil toward group X" than to get into the weeds on economic issues. Not to do purity testing BS, but I'm not even sure how many self-described socialists in Vaush's community even know what socialism is, it always feels like they're overwhelmingly very socially progressive socdems or liberals.
Yep I wasn’t aware how much his demographic proportionally shifted towards liberals 💀
It’s a bit crazy because he’s just as logical when it comes to socialism as any other topic.
As a long time viewer the vaush pipeline for me has been a tankie to an anarchist… I just guess recently he’s attracted liberals, hopefully he can bring them towards the left.
Yeah it's just a self selective effect. Vaush's brand is basically the gay debatebro, and his vote blue no matter who arc turned off a lot of his more radical audience. So what audience do you end up with? LGBT liberals.
@@StrayChoom I suspect that what is going on is that he has attracted a younger crowd. They're not so much liberals as they are politically incoherent with a tendency towards the default political mode of our time.
@@rainbowkrampus sounds like a distinction without a difference to me :D although if they're young, the probably aren't particularly stuck there either
Vaush is explaining how socialism would work for everyone and people complaining are like "oh you misunderstood. I only wanted socialism for me."
Except its literally not sociallism, it's communism (the most extreme left position you can take). Sociallism is a lower form of communism where private property is abolished but not personal property. Also, please learn the difference between private and personal property, because it's quite apparrent you, and almost everybody here, do not know.
@@JoviaI1 hello tankie destroyer, can you elaborate on where in marxist theory housing is referred to as personal property?
Incredibly funny watching the liberals in your chat and subreddit absolutely shit themselves over what amounts to basic Socialism Theory 101.
Maybe Vaush should think about why his audience has so many liberals in it....
yeah, it happens all the time and it's getting to the point that it's genuinely frustrating
"But Vowsh, what's the alternative to summer homes?"
Liberals aren’t socialists
House prices would not be completely insane, and everyone could be guaranteed a roof, if housing was built on a socialism model.
I am literally staying in hotels for upwards of $400 a week, and have been denied by two rental companies who own half the town because of “poor rental history” no specifics other than that. Oh yeah and they steal $25-$30 per application you have to submit.
25-30 and that’s it? Shit it’s 75 PER applicant where I’m at
I have to give atleast $150 USD per application, it sucks out here
You apply for an apartment and have to pay?
Would be better if you didn't have to pay, huh?
I love Capitalism
Vaush: "I think my system would be much better than the current one, while still accounting for the finiteness of physical existence."
Chat: "hmm yes but have you considered [problem existing in the current system]?"
Rinse and repeat.
That is, that's the video
i can imagine Stickler's voice (from Netflix's Cuphead Show) with that last line XD
I love it when you try to make a simple point about why landlords are bad and housing should be a right handled by the government and people invent 20 insane hypotheticals attempting to prove why being unable to afford a roof over your head is a good thing actually.
EDIT: the further I get into this video the more unhinged chat becomes
There are WAYYYYY too many arguments on the internet that are just:
*makes completely normal statement that applies in 99.99999% of cases*
"Oh yeah, what about THIS hyper specific counter example?!?!?! Did you think about that HUH?????
"Then we can figure out a work-around for Greg when we get to tha-"
"Do you want Greg to DIE?????????????????????????"
@@Hello-nm1ysTruuuuue. I think it’s just because people naturally have really strong gut-reactions to things they don’t like, but a lot of the time they don’t have any actually relevant arguments against them, so they just spout their most anxious/unrealistic hypotheticals as a way to oppose those ideas. The main objection that chat really had was just “it’s different and scary, I don’t like it.”
Moderators, Vaush. GET MODERATORS.
He didn't even say "by the government," he just said that it should be done by some kind of organization that is motivated purely by the desire to provide housing, rather than by a profit motive.
He left plenty of room for it to be very decentralized rather than being run directly by the government.
The problem here is that in the real world where I am a worker who does not own real estate, this sounds good. But in my imaginary fantasy world where I am about to be an extremely rich real estate magnate, this sounds downright horrific.
So I’m undecided
It's quite surprising how baffled vaushes chat is about housing decomodification. Did you guys not know he is a socialist?
I mean socialism has never and will never work, his chat was unusually intelligent.
@airlesscanvas6425, it's never been implemented, so how would you know?
@@airlesscanvas6425 yeah his version will never work. But forbidding and force selling of private and public houses hoarding in high request zones should help restore the prices at a reasonable levels and finally people can work for their money and put it in the real economy, instead of sitting on houses properties and keep jacking up the prices no matter the state.
YOu can own a house in high request only if you live in it at least half of the year
Unless his positions have changed, I was under the impression that Vaush was for coalition building: i.e. "I don't agree with everything you believe in, but we agree enough to work towards our shared goals and then part ways". In such a community, disagreements, especially in regards to edge perspectives, is not only expected, but guaranteed.
@@spectilia as a leftist you can disagree within the limits of surpassing capitalism, agreeing with whomever wants to keep capitalism ongoing is almost impossible in a broad perspective
"Will I be able to own a summer house?"
You won't need one, because vacation accommodations would also be a public service. ✊
This right here, that's what a fing Hotel is for. Like, I live in Poland, the idea of owning a summer house sounds ludicrous to me, (partly because our sea is cold, and our mountains are short (and that sounds like some East-Asian insult) so more often than not our holiday destinations are outside of Poland) we just rent rooms in a hotel/resort.
Where I'm from, a cabin in the relative wilderness is the dream.
INTOURIST
@@IndependentObserver I'm gonna start using that as an insult now
@@IndependentObserver i just hate being in any type of water. lake, river or sea. my eczema won't even let me enjoy a warm shower during winter time, never mind a hot shower for added steam during cold and lfu seasons TTwTT
so a water-centric summer house is not only irrelevant to me, it's a waste of money.
In this video, Vaush argues with people who are privileged enough to not know how renting a house works.
Turns out food, water and housing the basic needs to live shouldnt be a commodity. Building/buying your own home or renting should be subsidized
Making them a right does not necessarily that they would get them, if anything it would make the situation much, much worse.
@@airlesscanvas6425in what way will making strides to guarantee access to something make the problem of lack of access to something worse?
@@gamakujira64e23 Because housing requires labour to both build and expand, making it a right won't change that. Considering you are taking the profit incentives out of housing you would need to give a reason for people to actually build them and maintain them regularly. Considering how many industries and jobs that would effect that amount of taxes required to provide decent conditions (not even consider quality one) would completely fuck the economy.
@@airlesscanvas6425 taking away the profit incentive is good because it shifts the incentive of building housing towards making people’s lives better, and that generally leads to better outcomes for people. Also, in what way would increasing taxation make the economy worse?
@@airlesscanvas6425Taking away the profit incentive doesn't also take away the incentive of a place to live.
Also I think it's fair to assume the taxes you'd pay to guarantee housing for everyone, including you would be FAR LESS than it currently costs to rent, much less buy one house just for you and/or your family.
"What's the alternative to summer homes?" Not.. not owning that. It's actually quite easy!
How about my private vacation island! My beach home! My survival bunker in the mountains!
what are they, temporarily embarrassed billionaires?! Vaush needs moderators at this point X3
As with anything else there's nuance, and I think people (chatters) aren't satisfied with an incomplete answer. To that I say: tough. Be more creative. If summer homes are important to one's vision of a future then imagine a system in which they can still exist in some form. It can be done, brains are well known for the ability to imagine things.
@@panfried_egg private property is theft.
@@panfried_egg He did give a solution to what summer homes would be. Short term rentals like hotels. Summer homes aren’t that important and he’s not building a utopia he’s explaing what decomodified housing looks like. And short term rentals like Hotels dont really have anything to do with that.
You know that meme talking about rich people that goes like: People who grew up with money will look at you and say something insane like "Do you ski?".
That's you fuckers with your summer homes.
Housing being determined by need (even if this is determined through state power) rather than money would be far better than the current system.
When you just say it like that , no details on how it would work or any logistics , sure it would be better
@@brutuslugo3969Easy: the government would build large apartment blocks with inexpensive materials that would then be tenant-controlled.
@@coderamen666 better system - no one owns a home they don't live in. apartments are still an option, but so are houses, with needs/interest in maintaining/household size determining what people are given.
@@coderamen666 but individuals won't be allowed to pay a contractor to build them a house ? They'd have to wait on the government to give them one ?
With the (I hope) obvious implication that said government would be democratic, if not proletarian, a.k.a. ultra-democratic.
Today, I learned that every VGG chatter is a landlord.
And you know what we do to landlords...
I'll sharpen the lemonade stand
tip them /s
If you've ever had the misfortune of renting a property run by a rental company, you would understand that the government couldn't possibly do a worse job. 30% of income going to a company that will never fix or replace anything, tries to fine you or blame you for anything wrong with the house, increases your rent by the maximum legal amount every single year, etc.
Landlords are increasingly becoming petty little tyrants leveraging their properties like a weapon against renters. This is especially true for mom and pop landlords. Cap rents across the board, enshrine squatters rights to start. Make not signing a formal lease a criminal offense as well. I nearly took my last landlord to court
They wanna go from landlords to feudal lords
WAIT A MINUTE WAIT A MINUTE I thought yall were whining that house lust was "fascist" in the last vaush video
@@footballdesk4417 The fact you think this is a dunk says a lot about you.
@@footballdesk4417 top tier shadowboxing
@@ThatWolfArrowYes landlordism is quite literally a feudal concept. Renting out property and recieving a paycheck for the privilege of working for you is literally no different to serfs working the land of their lord.
Entire chat filled with "temporarily embarrassed homeowners"
well put lol
I mean... in a liberal context that's literally the goal right? Everyone should eventually become a homeowner. Renting just out of college is supposed to be a temporary condition.
@@appa609 have you watched the video?
@@eedeneel I have. It's stupid. It's good for people to own a home. Just no more than one.
@@appa609 it's good for who? The people who own sure. It's not good for the economy or for society at large
Damn, I guess China tried Capitalism too hard.
Funny given how little effort they put into communism.
@@np4029 Almost zero. I know because I live in a similar system: Vietnam.
@@np4029 yeah but thats the end goal
@@jogo798 Taking a loooonnnnggggg detour to get there.
Inboking Marxism i see. @@jogo798
Won't someone think of the summer homes?! How can I be expected to live without summering in Cocoa Beach every year like a true proletariat worker?? /s
Even worse, I could vacation there every year, but the room I'll sleep in won't be empty unused land the other 51 weeks of the year
Okay, what if it’s a summer home in the middle of nowhere near the Finnish-Russian border? Why must Vaush insist that only one house can be assigned to one person in his system?
@@sataniccabal4276 Cause more is waste.
@@krkngd-wn6xj It's not. Do you truly think it's okay to be confined to one location for years on end? Russia is a vast country, there is no shortage of empty space--especially if most of said space is conveniently uninhabitable during the winter, and is at it's best during the summer. USSR had decomodified housing and they managed to make it work. You and everyone else here, including Vaush, needs to stop thinking about this as an American.
@sataniccabal4276 Are you a troll? Nobody is confined to one place, you can choose to move, or go on a vacation or whatever
Chat: I'd rather take a chance on becoming homeless!
Making housing a right does not guarantee people will be housed.
@@airlesscanvas6425 please explain how someone would go unhoused if housing is a guaranteed right
@@beanbrewer Because housing requires labour to both build and expand, making it a right won't change that. Considering you are taking the profit incentives out of housing you would need to give a reason for people to actually build them and maintain them regularly. Considering how many industries and jobs that would effect that amount of taxes required to provide decent conditions (not even consider quality one) would completely fuck the economy.
@@airlesscanvas6425 is there an original thought in your head or do you just copy and paste the same response everywhere
@@airlesscanvas6425 I assume you're against public health care as well then?
So many of these arguments in chat always just boil down to "what if I'm a vegetable and can't do anything"
I mean, that's just classic leftists arguing from the worst possible outcome. Same as arguing "but what about grape" whenever you bring a pro-life argument. To be clear, I'm pro-choice, but it's still _literally_ the same argument.
To be even more clear, what I'm arguing for is better arguments. _Do Wrong, Right_ (TvTropes), and all that. "But what about special cases" should always have the same answer: "use special measures, if normal systems won't/shouldn't fix it." Not everyone is the same. Shocking, I know.
Now I understand why VGG has been so horrible lately, it’s been infested by a bunch of libs.
China really said “if you build it, they will come” and no one showed
I love the people who have probably never lived anywhere but with their parents complaining that this system of housing that would be the cheapest they'd ever seen, and free up so much of their income for literally everything else, ends up having to use force in events where people lie under contract, and aggressively refuse to be moved by anything short of police force. These people unironically make this complaint whilst simultaneously living in a system where your landlord will call the police to throw you out into the street if you miss a rent payment, or if a new company buys your lot and doubles the rent one day.
so abolish renting, not home ownership. Vaush wants to turn the government into landlords, which while cheaper, also hosts a litany of other problems, least of which is that it is ripe for abuse
@@pewpewpandas9203explain where 30% of the u.s population will live when no apartments exist and they cant afford or find mcmansions to live in
@@Mrwizard-ck7oe you can own an apartment. That's not the correct argument
@@pewpewpandas9203 but then you can’t easily move and you’re locked in a certain area if everyone owns a house.
Because all available houses either have to be vacant, or you have to barter with homeowners to buy their house.
If you banned renting that would do little to affect housing prices, if anything that just worsens the issue.
Because a sizeable proportion of people in the west rent & affording houses is literally an impossibility.
For example my girlfriend works in a nursery, for around £20k a year.
She already spends half that on rent a year.
With her salary for all housing in any city in our country, it is impossible to save enough money to even afford a deposit for a mortgage for even an apartment in a city.
Let alone the actual mortgage payments. Which cost about 2-4 times as much in comparison to renting.
She would HAVE to marry someone to ever have a shot at home ownership, working in her profession.
And then if you ban renting, it’s still a commodity that can be bought and sold, so it renders half of the point moot.
There would need to be some form of price controls, and even if there was, private home ownership would still be the worse option in comparison to council housing.
My main point is liveable, convenient, affordable & reasonably priced housing.
Most people want or need to move at some point in their lives. Whether it be for university, to follow opportunities, or because they don’t like where they live.
Or if crime is too high in there area, it can spook some people to move too.
Renting is effectively the only easy way to do that.
And also reasonably priced is being…
@@pewpewpandas9203 But then you can’t easily move and you’re locked in a certain area if everyone owns a house.
Because all available houses either have to be vacant, or you have to barter with homeowners to buy their house.
If you banned renting that would do little to affect housing prices, if anything that just worsens the issue.
Because a sizeable proportion of people in the west rent & affording houses is literally an impossibility.
For example my partner works in a nursery, for around £20k a year.
She already spends half that on rent a year.
With her salary for all housing in any city in our country, it is impossible to save enough money to even afford a deposit for a mortgage for even an apartment in a city.
Let alone the actual mortgage payments. Which cost about 2-4 times as much in comparison to renting.
She would *have* to marry someone to ever have a shot at home ownership, working in her profession.
And then if you ban renting, it’s still a commodity that can be bought and sold, so it renders half of the point moot.
There would need to be some form of price controls, and even if there was, private home ownership would still be the worse option in comparison to council housing.
My main point is liveable, convenient, affordable & reasonably priced housing.
Most people want or need to move at some point in their lives. Whether it be for university, to follow opportunities, or because they don’t like where they live.
Or if crime is too high in there area, it can spook some people to move too.
Renting is effectively the only easy way to do that.
And also reasonably priced is being…
i feel like people strongly objecting to this haven't experienced exactly how awful renting can be. the profit incentive destroys any chance of it being a quality experience. i'm sure that local governments would fuck up managing socialized housing in all sorts of ways but it would still be sunshine & daisies compared to negotiating with these ghoulish management companies
The answer to this is to abolish renting, not home ownership
@@pewpewpandas9203 theyre literally 2 sides of the same coin, u rent from a home owner who doesnt live in that house
On the contrary, I think it's a reaction to the idea of renting. Most people who rent don't do so by choice, and would much rather own the place they live, given the chance. So when Vaush comes in and proposes _all_ housing be government-owned, and you have to regularly renew a lease with the government on your housing to keep it, and they might decide not to renew that lease because you don't fit their standard for a desired resident anymore, they just hear 'rent under a new name'. Doesn't matter if it's cheap/free, or if the terms are much friendlier than rental contracts, there is an instinctual dislike of the idea that someone else controls the place you live, can tell you what you can and can't do with it, and can evict you should they decide to. (And yes, Eminent Domain is a thing, but the vast majority of people will never have to deal with it.)
I was honestly kinda surprised by Vaush's complete lack of comprehension on why people hated the idea so much and kept comparing it to renting because 'you don't own your home' and 'you can be forcibly removed from your home for any number of arbitrary reasons' are the exact reasons people hate renting so much.
. I agree. One has to understand that people want to own the home they live in and have the control over it to fix it up to like it. Vaush's idea feels too close to you will own nothing and like it or else to people and they do not like it.
@@yautl1 Vaush is a life long renter I think. He's also on the spectrum, and probably can't understand the concept of having an attachment to land / one's home.
He is, however, correct in saying that it's probably better for a society if no private citizen owns land / property. It would suck, and you're right that it just feels worse than owning a place outright, but that is a privileged position. Plenty of people never have owned land, and never will under the current system. To crate an equal society is to forego those privileges.
Hot take: I think humanizing more systems and making them more ethical is a good thing, and capitalism is bad.
I know, I know I'm the craziest socialist.
"Why they aren't using drywall in Europe?" what the heck chat is talking about? 😂
We _are_ _using_ _drywalls_ in our buildings in places we don't have to put load-bearing walls. What _isn't_ _popular_ in Europe are those wooden modular houses you can easily put together. We like our brick houses, thank you very much.
The US should build more Eutipean-style concrete-limestone houses. These cheaply wooden single family homes break apart after 10 years.
not to mention when the bricks can be better engineered for insulation and prevent termites. still, might wanna check with how housing is done in the Middle East when it comes to AC-free air circulation, 'cause we're totally gonna need that at the rate the planet heats up X3
Yea, that was fucking weird lol, I am European, and my summer job was drywall laying for years.
It's usually newer developments, where you use it on non-load bearing walls or as the inner layer with insulation between it and the load-bearing pillars.
The question should be "why aren't Americans using insulation?". If you're gonna use the AC to pump out all the heat, make sure it stays outside
There is a shocking amount of libs in Vaush's audience
He's spent an awful lot of time on various id-pol topics. And fashion. Speak on Libby topics, get Libby views.
This actually sounds rather nice. Not flawless, but nice.
Exactly, lmao. Maybe, like, some changes could make it better. But as a base concept it's really nice.
All you've got to do is just send an annual record of your lifestyle/life situation to the government, not too dissimilar from tax submissions.
Hell! We already have to manually file taxes that'd be the perfect time to update the government about your lease too!@@aidankeys8534 Because I would absolutely love my version of a "landlord" being an ELECTED OFFICIAL vs some of the absolutely vile vindictive people I've had to deal with as landlords. Seriously had my previous landlord get up in MY face because my MOM who was also a tenant in a different apartment and lease, had 3 shitty events happen to her in a month -- got covid and while sick and feverish fuckin fell and shattered her shoulder blade, lost her job BECAUSE OF COVID, and my dad petulantly quitting his job because he wanted to be a big dumb baby. And this bitch had the audacity to tell ME I was being selfish when I defended my mom and her situation when this bitch was whining at me that she couldn't EVICT MY MOTHER. Having the person in charge of that being ELECTED sounds like absurdly more accountability than we've got in our current system.
This reaffirms my belief that a lot of people living in shitty systems are too lazy and/or stupid to even dare imagining anything else
i recently read a story of a couple that lived in my city and were evicted over the course of 3 DAYS because the landlord wanted to sell the property. Vaush having to defend himself against chat who was upset by the idea of being given an entire year to find FREE housing was mind numbing 😵💫
vaush, I will say, this was a horribly flawed take about moving out when the residence no longer fits your needs when others need it more
I would simply invent spatial folding technology and fold space into itself to build a second house on the same plot of land. Like modded minecraft XD
I live in CA. If I wanted to live in a studio apartment less than a hour from my workplace, I would not be able to afford it. My GF, before we moved in together, got evicted from her apartment so that the corporate landlord could renovate it and then put it back on the market for a higher rent. So when Vaush started talking about decommodifying housing I was like YES! I would much rather tell a city employee, hey I work at this address and my GF lives with me, could you find us a place near my work?
Write Congress to pass a bill making it illegal for private firms to buy up single family homes.
That's a good idea, what is stopping you?
That's really dumb, just create tax incentives to not own so many single homes.
Congress doesn't give a shit darling. They will wipe their asses with any and all of those letters.
That's not the primary reason or even the secondary reason why we have this problem.
@@airlesscanvas6425 Lobbyists: hahahaha no
As someone who’s been homeless and is currently in temporary accommodation waiting for a council flat. Damn chat is stupid on this issue.
Okay I'm sold on this idea alone by the idea that houses are locked-out/recommended based on what's available in the area (jobs related) and the individual needs. So much better zoning organization could happen which means better chance of moving towards everything is a 15 minute city.
If only chat had half your brains
This is so stupid. I swear, Vaush could say "Every summer, you will be flown to a place of your choosing where you will be pampered for a week straight by hospitality workers and this wouldn't cost you a dime" and people would be up in arms about "being black bagged by the government and taken to an undisclosed location"
I almost feel like they are _deliberately_ trying to misunderstand his hypothetical, utopian picture of an ideal (or at least better) world.
Sometimes reality just doesn't work out how one anticipated.
There was actually something like state-distributed vacation in former East Germany. People would apply for it and get some vacation destination assigned by the state. It could very well happen that you spend your holidays in the neighbouring town a 15-minute drive away from your home. That happened to my grandpa's cousin for example.
Of course this isn't dystopian in any sense of the word. It's annoying at best. The thought that other people tell you what to do and then do it worse than you would have done for yourself is just uncomfortable I think.
Vaush: "In some areas, under certain circumstances, you would have to move if you don't meet the requirements anymore. You could get a five year lease on an apartment with the requirement that you work within the area. If you lose that job and don't have another job in the area, you'll have a year to move somewhere else, maybe just 15 minutes away from that original apartment. Same might apply to *massive mismatches* between the size of the house and how many people live there."
Chat: "I'll be forced to move every five years?! Vaush wants families to be torn apart because the house is for four people, but only three live there anymore?!"
yeah, he specifically said re-petitioning would be a thing. Hell, re-petitions would probably get preference when all else is near equal.
@@aidankeys8534 Exactly. You could even have standards that grant people the right to live in the same apartment or house if they've lived there long enough, even if it's not optimal land use. Like if a couple has raised a family in one house, they've lived there for 30 years, they'll just get the right to live there for the rest of their lives, even after their children have moved out.
Things don't need to be optimized to some crazy degree, but current problems, like people who work in the city having to travel into it from the outskirts need to be addressed. People who clean and maintain the city should have the right to live in that city.
Oh no, not moving every 5 years! It's not like I've been moving every 2-3 years for my entire adult life because the rents get hiked up until the place is no longer worth the price
The real question for Libertarians... What's the difference between rent and taxes?
"How To Spot A Space Nazi" because reasons.
The flavor of the thin vaneer of accountability that the tennant/taxpayer has.
What a nice spring cleaning, the liberalism needed a nice dusting from chat
Funny tho how you talk about landlords being companies or living in mansions whilst mine lives in A LITTERAL CASTLE (france moment)
WTF, you guys are on like the 8th fucking republic, how is that guy still alive?
Common y'all know what to do with people living in castles ;)
@@Hello-nm1ysThere's A LOT of castle in France and a lot of then are cheap as fuck cuz they are falling apart due to lack of maintenance for centuries (the nice castles are extremely expensive though)
a lot of what is being described here, waiting lists and local organizations to organize housing of different scales for different people - small apartements for students, as an example, then going up to larger apartements and small houses as oyu get older and begin having a family - is already how it works with certain systems here in scandinavia. Only, of course, we still pay rent and such, so its commodified.
But the basic system being discussed already exists and works decently well.
In Vienna more than half of the population live in city-owned housing. It works and the rent is not as bad as in many other European capitals. What exactly would be the problem to broaden this to decommodification and eventually include all housing? It's weird to see such animosity towards public services in Vaush's audience.
Americans barely understand what public services even are. Most of that stuff is privatized and the stuff that isn't is crippled by legislators so people beg for privatization. But also, Vaush didn't do a great job of explaining that _everyone_ will own _all_ of the housing. 🤔
The reason youd want to own your home rather than rent is that if hou ever decide to move, you now have a home you can sell to pay for the new one, you essentially trade in your old house for a new one.
If you rent, you pay forever, at least when you own, at some point the paying stops.
Notably, none of that would matter if homes didnt cost money in the first place.
Not only tjat. I love making my spaces mine, and every couple of years landlords are more anal about even nails in the walls. When you get weird looks for wanting to put shelves anywhere in the house, change the distribution of the kitchen, or any slight modification to the property is a pain in the ass as a renter. Luckily my dad owns our house and I have been able to mess with the walls of my room and the living room, but in the last apartment I was renting it was so restrictive
You'll own _all_ of the housing, and the only costs you'll pay are maintenance. ✊
My favorite vaush videos are the one where he spends an hour constantly slapping chats wtists and having to rexlplain a relatively simple concept they refuse to understand
In mainland europe where there is a decent amount of good social housing availability it's actually culturally weird to want to own your own home.
Social housing is similar to unions in that it only needs a meanful chunk in state ownership to actually exert significant market pressure on rentals.
In the UK social housing is priced based on local wages for the area and the profit used to go into local council services, multiple European countries copied this model prior to thatcher.
Current in the UK due to the social housing shortage from thatcher 'help to buy' councils rent from the private sector for a loss.
It's not weird to want to own your home in europe. We even own pur own apartments. Source: A european.
Only issue I have with this model is "modifications" to the house
If you own it, you can say demolish the wall, or run a wire in a wall to add an outlet. If you rent it it's nearly impossible or up to a landlord, some commodities like AC can be added if landlord thinks it will benefit them long term. Or even much smaller issues like drilling a wall to hang a picture. Would you need to file a form for it with government? And then government contractor comes and patches it? And if you ruin the apartment you'll be fined for it? Landlords take deposits for this reason but paying deposit to government sounds off to me. Would it come from taxes? Everyone would pay safety deposits for every single apparent on an off chance someone will mess up theirs?
You actually _will_ own the dwelling, but so will everyone else. So upgrades like adding an outlet are unlikely to upset anyone. If you knock down an entire wall, you may need to cover the cost of replacing it. The state would provide you with a heat pump, but you'd probably be responsible for patching holes in the wall. 🤔
I can't imagine the complete decommodification of housing, but implementing housing utilities for population densities over a certain threshold seems reasonable.
That's the way to start, yes. Build public housing in the cities that rural folks are jealous of. Then build a big solar factory nearby. ✊
i fucking hate people who treat houses like investments but i have the autistic urge to constantly make major modifications to my house like painting it new colors or doing cool workshop things and idk to what extent i could do that if i didn't own the home, so "renting" in a decommodified system in the way described at the beginning sounds unappealing to me personally. not that that's any argument against the broader economic points of course
Yeah was also thinking about this, my parents are homeowners and they just love to modify things. Like sometimes i’m gone for a week and they just removed a wall, or added a wall to make a new room. It’s of course not a big enough reason for not helping countless people get a good home, but it’s still something that would be quite sad if it couldn’t be done anymore. You probably could ask for permission but i don’t think my parents for example would enjoy it anymore if that was needed and I also think that the state will just say to fuck off if you ask them for approval for a new project every month.
but why would the government care if you modify your home? It's not like you're going to hurt its resale value, there is no market. you would have to meet building codes and zoning regulations but we already do that
Basically what @undrimv00d00 said. By decommodifying housing, you're eliminating the single largest limiter on why anyone would care about you modifying your home, which is property resale value. Properly implemented, the lease would basically give you the right to do minor modifications completely freely and only having to receive a permit for modifications that, for example, change the qualifications of the home, for example you couldn't just add a floor on top or redraw the floor plan without running that by the commune.
autistic urge? avoiding unnecessary change is literally a trait of autism, wut ur describing is the opposite of an autistic urge
This is something I was thinking about as well. Adding some personality to your home is very important to a lot of people
32:00 funny how that sounds utopian for americans, that's pretty much how city-owned housing for students works in Finland right now.
I will always remember what George Carlin said I think in his last stand-up:
"Personally folks, I believe that if your rights came from God he would've given you the right to some food everyday, and he would've given you the right to a roof over your head. God would've been lookin' out for you."
Vaush: "I will only cover this a little bit since I don't know much about it"
Video length: 1 hour 26 minutes
It was actually really nice to talk on some actual leftist/socialist theory as we don’t get to go that a lot, and of course chat’s brains start melting 😅
What the hell is wrong with Vaush's idiot chat? This shit sounds amazing! Massive safety net covering everybody? No more homelessness?
There would still be homelessness in fact there would be much more homelessness than before. People regularly fled East Berlin into the West for a reason.
@@airlesscanvas6425that didn’t follow this sort of thought
@@airlesscanvas6425People can immigrate over to another country and there still be no homelessness lmao?
@@airlesscanvas6425how? Lots of housing is sitting vacant. If you didn't have to afford it, and got it assigned then I don't understand how we would have more homelessness
@@justinroyse4271as long as they’re working, all any immigrants will be doing in taking a new place here is enriching our economy further.
27:20 Sound passing through the walls isn't a drywall issue, it's because your American walls are made out of paper.
If you actually insulate it, then it will block sound, and you can stay warm during cold winters, and cold during summers.
1:24 I actually _loooove_ the way Indian and Pakistani women dress. A nice sari, or that other garment that's kind of like a tunic/dress(?) worn with pajama like trousers and a long flowing scarf can be _extremely_ flattering on a woman. It can make the younger women look like Disney princesses or something, and make the older ones seem distinguished and almost majestic.
I don't want to romanticize it to the point of being maudlin (yeah, too late probably) but traditional south Asian woman's clothing is so much more appealing to my western eyes than the mass produced "athleisure" wear that's become dismayingly common in America.
The tunic is called a kurta. I wish south Asian men got encouraged to dress up like the women do but they usually just wear a dress shirts and jeans
@@CHAOS80120the south asian femboy movement must grow
@@CHAOS80120 Ah, thanks, that's good to know but I was actually trying to describe a salwar. (I just looked it up.)
"they usually just wear a dress shirts"
I've noticed that in Pakistani dramas. The male leads all wear white business shirts. And whenever the characters are talking excitedly about something, they'll always say just one or two brief phrases in English instead of Urdu to put extra emphasis on it. lol
@@hadronoftheseus8829 I'm Sri Lankan and most everyone here speaks mixed. Like they'll use a English word here and there while speaking in their native language.
@@hadronoftheseus8829 This is actually pretty common here in Southeast Asia, where people would speak in their native language but drop a phrase or two in English, or use an English word.
The reverse also happens, where sometimes locals would converse in English but then substitute in a native word here and there.
The cultural difference here is massive. As a Finn, when you say summer home to me I think of a small cottage by a small lake, thats smaller than the room I see vaush stream in. Though it also has another small building that is about the same size, but thats the mandatory sauna. You chop wood to warm your cottage and drink beer while watching over the lake and waiting for the sauna to get warm. The main things to do in the Finnish "Mökki" experience are chores, small improvement projects and nothing.
I want to enable that experience, not a waterfront mansion with airconditioning and all modern commodities.
Yep, I love the idea of having a second home (after getting the first lol) by a lake or beach in a small town or whatever. But I always imagine a small cabin or even just a site to park a car and put a tent. See the stars, drink a cuple of beers, make music/draw/write, dance, anything. If I want ti be in a airconditioned box with perfect lighting, I would go to a mall
Vaush: hey guys, here's how life for everyone could be improved under socialism!
Libs in Chat: But muh Capitalism!!!
literally when did chat become such libcucks
Something Vaush didn't really touch on (yet, I haven't finished the video) is how this would help city planning. If you know generally what demographics of people live where, you can more efficiently design the city to suit their needs. So areas with a high population of college students would have more bars, night clubs, fast food places and public places to hang out in. They would also need more public transport and less parking space since students are unlikely to be in a position where they own a car and even if they do they'll be spending a majority of their time around the university so they won't need one as often and can instead use public transport.
i agree. socialism doesn't make the world perfect, but it literally only has gains over other systems when handled properly. sure, you may have a boring job, but at least you (and tens of millions of americans) wont have to live paycheck to paycheck, and wont need to pick up multiple full time jobs to live. it sounds kinda dystopian in a way, but it'd be kinda nice to live as a cog in the extremely efficient system lmao
Basically, we're seeing a class divide play out in real time in the chat. People who are against it are probably landowners who benefit from the current system. People for it are probably renters who are adversely affected by the current system.
Redistribution of resources means making one side very unhappy for the sake of the greater good.
I guess the one point of frustration for me would be, what do you do when you have a hobby that requires a lot of space? Like if you enjoy tinkering with cars or woodworking, or in my case 3D printing? I want a larger house because I want a basement / workshop to work on my projects. Under Vaush's proposal, where everyone is assigned a number of rooms / space based on their "need", do I just have to suck it up and deal with my small apartment because I don't technically NEED a workshop? Would people just not be allowed to have space-intensive hobbies?
You'd probably have to weigh your hobby vs a longer commute. There would be a lot more flexibility in square footage in areas that had less demand
@@CarbonMage Honestly that sounds amazing. I definitely wouldn’t mind living further away from a city if it meant I got an extra room for my cats or for a hobby. As long as I wasn’t in the way of someone else who needs that space more but like you said, I could just live in a low demand area. Would I prefer to live in the city? Sure! But sometimes you have to weight your options. Idk what the chat is on about…. If I knew I had somewhere to live guaranteed no matter what I’d legit cry from happiness.
I believe in housing decommodification but this was explained so poorly. People shouldn’t be forced to move unless there is an EXTREME disparity between the property and the person(s) living there. People still need to be guaranteed the right to stay in a property for a long time until they want to move. Nobody will support decommodification without those guarantees.
He literally said this multiple times in the video.
common f neoliberalism
All the real estate investors in chat malding
Chat coming up with all the wildest strawmen, literally just like how conservatives talk about free healthcare lmao.
It seems that chat had some issues with Vaush's take, but because they were unable to express it properly, Vaush couldn't address it adequately, and the stunlock continues.
In this case, I think chat is trying to say that plenty of people do not like moving around. A lot of them want to lay down their roots in a place - maybe they grew up there and love their neighbours, or perhaps they just like living there. So Vaush's idea of constantly having to ask for lease extensions from the government every few years does sound restrictive.
It would only be in extremely high demand areas, but I know what you mean. Compared to what we have now though, I'd say the current set up is just as restrictive if not more when landlords can increase rent as much as they like and you are forced to move anyway.
"whats the alternative to summer homes" feels very "but what about my yacht" to me lol
25:03 As a German, if you think a privatised system is inherently more competent than a state run one... Let me tell you about our railway system.................. (about 30-50 minutes later, if you're lucky)
DB wurde Privatisiert, musste Gewinnne erwirtschaften, deswegen sparen und das ist der Grund für schlechte Bahninfrastruktur und damit den Verspätungen.
This plan would also create a whole bunch of government jobs to place people in the right homes, as well as moving.
I’d like to implement a system where people can ease into new houses when two people switch places so that they can get to know the neighbors and the local goods and services. This would also hopefully give both parties time to make sure they’re happy with the move.
Nationalise housing. Maybe not entirely, but take back houses from corporate control.
The problem is that this isn’t just a simple corporations vs people like it is for private health care. Millions of private citizens own homes and rent them out because it’s kind of the only tool given to a middle class person to raise their financial status. Something like 60% of Americans own a home. So, you aren’t just up against corporations when it comes to decomodfying housing, you are also up against millions of regular people. I really believe everyone is fantastically undermining how difficult it will be to get public support on that. This will actually require a violent revolution to occur if you want to decomodify housing
That will just make everything much, much worse.
@@julianbell9161 we should have massive limitations on this. there's definitely ways to do it that are fair. it should be based on the demand and needs of an area. in a place with a lower population, where the need isn't so high, then maybe people should be allowed second homes. But in high-density areas no one should be buying a home they don't live in. All they are doing is making a passive income off of someone else's need to live. If we got rid of that system, then it would bubble up, and the people who are losing those secondary sources of income would benefit overall too.
It wouldn't be an easy transition, but it's one we are probably going to need to make.
@@bulletsandbracelets4140 This, can't recall if it was France or one of the Benelux countries but essentially the government made it so that if you aren't consistently staying at a property, you pay ridiculous taxes on it to the point that you are either forced to sell or forced to accept a reasonable rent. It's really that simple, no one is asking for a Proletarian Revolution here, just the ability to have a roof over their head.
@@AgrippaMaxentius I think that could be a good first step, and that's honestly the most we can probably realistically hope for. But I think it's worthwhile to give more credit to the idea of decommodifying it entirely. The cost to administer those extra penalties, the ways people would find around them, the logistics of how a "reasonable rent" is determined depending on where you are - all of that just seems to make things more complicated rather than less.
I like decommodified housing for the same reason I like universal basic income. Everyone gets a payout. Everyone gets a home. You don't have to prove you deserve it, you don't have to meet any guidelines to keep it, the government doesn't have to maintain arbitrary tests or inconsistent standards that need to change over time anyway. People just get what they need because they are human and have the right to baseline conditions.
more of this please! I really appreciate the talking about actual theory, even if simplified
Its insane that chat immediately resorted to libertarian tier 'well what if i want 50 yachts and a mega mansion' arguments
I'm all for housing decommodification because a market system of housing is actual garbage at properly allocating shelter, but I'm curious how place attachment plays into the "relocate to best-fit needs" model that Vaush is proposing. People live in certain places for so many reasons beyond the economics of it (though they play a huge part), and one of those reasons is place attachment. I've spoken to folks that have moved *to* food deserts simply because that's where they grew up. Granted, I've only gotten through half of the video, but I didn't want to forget the thought so I'm it writing now. If he addresses it later, I'll edit.
Edit: So it seems he's talking mostly about high-demand areas, but even so the place attachment question still applies It's a very powerful part of local and neighborhood cultures. I get it's sort of part of a standard life-cycle now in America to move out when you reach your 20s, but I think alongside housing decommodification we should also incentivize multigenerational housing, where folks aren't expected to move out of the family home. It's both more efficient land-wise, and also socially beneficial.
Im pretty sure for this case you would commission the gov housing administration that overaees that food dessert area and say "What propertys are available here". Seeing as its a food dessert location there probably wouldnt be much demand so probably a bunch of places would be open and you would just move there.
From what i understand, the system Vaush is talking about would mainly effect more populated locations. Rural places with little demand would almost always have a location available there and if it didnt you could patition the governemt to build one or build it yourself.
For those who live in a suburban house 30mins away from a city center its likely that little would change for you as no one is in despirate need for a house like that. All you would have to do is, according to Vaushes system, is go to the housing authority every 5 years and say "nothings changed on my end how about yours?" And they would say "well there is no need to move you because there are still a lot of open houses in your neighborhood. See you again in 5 years." And send you on your way.
@@thedungeoneer101 Yeah, that makes sense to me for those rural areas that there'd be low demand. I figure to address the place attachment issue of high-demand urban areas is to have the authority recommend nearby locations in the case of single people, couples/small polycules, or the elderly. I think we could consider development that favors multigenerational housing, since I think part of Vaush's system plays off of the current life cycle of moving out in your 20s and having a small family in the building. Multigenerational units could help prevent people from being moved frequently to make space for newcomers since people would be expected to move back/stay in one place to care for their family, like people had done historically before the concept of the nuclear family took hold.
@@linuslarson493 That's a good point. Since most of the housing under his system would be based on need, no need would be higher than that of a large multigenerational family living in one house.
I need someone to edit Vaushes voice clips here over that scene in Up with the contractor.
Serious thoughts, I'm not fully opposed to this system. If there was a national referendum to start this plan in its entirety, I'd vote for it. And I don't think my criticisms of this plan would hurt me, specifically, but I do have concerns.
First of all, this does centralize power in the government. You can say the police do too, but that argument only really works if you don't have problems with the police as an institution. Historically, libertarian socialists have held up decentralization as a value, that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. If we give the state full ownership over housing, that opens up a lot of pathways for dogwhistle politics or simple incompetence. A businessman can discriminate on race, capitalism as a whole only discriminates on wealth, but the state can say, "oh, you work in social services. Sorry, but we're going to move you out of town, and this has nothing to do with the fact that black people are more likely to work in social services and vote against us." Or you could get one terms worth of politicians saying, "immigrants are taking our welfare," and now immigrants are on the streets. Or maybe a bad politician runs the program incompetently, and just ends up crippling it.
I also take issue with the idea that you can't be secure in your own home. If you believe in alienation as a convept, you have to understand the concern. I mean this in two ways.
I dont like the idea that you can, due to circumstances you agreed to but didn't have a choice in, always be at risk of losing your home. Vaush says that some housing probably won't be in demand for others so youll probably get to keep it. Thats not enough. If there is some low demand housing which its likely no one wants, maybe there could be a protection that, if you wish, you get to live there until you choose to move or die. I think this is likely doable.
My other concern is I dont like the idea of your home, your first place, being tightly controlled by outside forces. Vaush has criticized both capitalism and democratically planned atate socialism as being alienating to the worker because you can't control your circumstances, you cant solve issues relating to your work easily, and that is spirituality damaging. I feel like this should be more damaging when it comes to your home because its your home. We have different words for a house and a home because of what control over a home means for us. If someone wants to build a vr arcade in the basement, can they? Can they build a secret door bookshelf, can they switch out their doors?
This, I feel, is one of the advantages of a housing coop. Housing coops are able to make third places they craft the world around them in a way that matches the constituents will. I think this also demonstrates the value in decentralization. Housing coops can much more effectively address the wants of their constituents because its something seperate from the government, it can act on its own initiative, you might be able to leave it and join one thst better suits your interests if its within your desire.
Vaush acts like these asks are unreasonable because renters already are alienated from their own homes. But renters aren't even the majority. 65% of Americans are homeowners, and we expect culturally that people will eventually have that privilege as they age. I'm sure its within our capabilities to make it so that everyone who wants a home can have a home.
I dont really associate distrust of the government and a wish for people to truly be in control of their circumstances as exclusive of socialism, personally i thought that was the point. But if these are actually liberal points, then i guess im a liberal.
As i said before, I'd prefer the policy to what we have. I think there are problems to address, I think we could probably easily make it so that the people who want to live forever in their house or modify it can, if they are willing to sacrifice other benefits. Maybe you could buy certain housing from the government if you wanted to modify it greatly, and you could only sell it back to the government if you wanted to modify your housing. I think this system could very easily be maliciously weaponized compared to our current system (which hurts people, but only for profit) but I think this system would be worthwhile to test.
I'm more in favor of the idea of "abstract decommodification"
- "food" in the abstract is decommodified (food stamps for all)
- specific foods (caviar?) aren't decommodified
- "housing" in the abstract is decommodified (there are homes available for free in certain locations)
- specific homes (large ones, mansions) aren't
also why not make mansions and fill them with people
a mansion has like 30 bedrooms
30 people could totally live in a mansion
A lot of people probably don't want to share kitchen spaces with 30 odd strangers. That's a fine suggestion for existing mansions but building more might not be in demand.
@@Hello-nm1ys Well, just reserve mansions for friend groups of 30 people, then! They aren't strangers, therefore problem solved or something.
@@Hello-nm1ys The fill them with people that don't need their own kitchen space, like for example old folks. Maybe add in a service element of a few cooks, cleaners and nurses because they still need food and help anyway and the cleaner and nurses can also live there.
I agree that this is infinitely better than the current rental system, but I don't see any reason that we couldn't have the majority of properties have lifetime allocations. Property shouldn't be an investment, but I want to be able to customize my home, build a workshop, make the space my own, and invest time and effort into making my home perfect for me, safe in the knowledge that I'm not going to be removed, or at least that I'm not going to be removed unless there's the sort of massive upheaval that would require the use of eminent domain. I'm the sort of person who likes to make things, and wants to shape my environment with my own two hands, and that's just not worth doing if you have to reapply to continue living in your home every several years. Even in downtown areas, I see no reason we can't just make more and more dense mixed use downtown areas. A downtown area is just as wonderful for an old retired person, who can maintain their independence much longer by being able to get to everywhere you need to go in just a few minutes walk, even if they've gone blind and can't walk very far, and therefore can't drive a mobility scooter or even make longer commutes by public transit. Downtown is good for everyone. The only thing I can possibly think of where it would even potentially be worth relocating people is student housing, which I mean fair just treat that like dorms but you don't have to leave during the summer, and very large 3+ bedroom homes in very dense areas. And even then, there aren't that many people who are going to have families big enough to need something like that in the first place. But even a two bedroom apartment in the city, if a someone's settled in there, and their kids have move out, and their spouse either died or divorced them, and they want to keep living in the house they've been living in and just have a guest bedroom or a study in the spare bedroom, then I don't see what the problem is, even in a dense urban area.
A system like this would be a dream for me. I've already come to terms that I will likely never own a place of my own and will be, at best, moving from place to place at great expense.
"you want to make housing free for everyone? Nuh-uh if I can't have my own summer home that I use once a year for a week then I don't want any of it and I'm pro capitalist housing aka homelessness and people suffering with high rents"
-a chatter, probably
Decommodification can be achieved through the tax code right now without any challenge to any court system. I am a tax auditor and a member of a union. I know everything about this. Perhaps Vaush could have me on sometime?
email him
Email him x2. He reads them
Warning: Leftist Post Below. Read More at your own risk.
I do like the idea of there being government run apartments (eg rentals), and I also agree that home's should not be investment properties, but I disagree completely with the idea that all living spaces should be government owned and operated. Price controls on rent and home costs seems like the easiest solution to this (in conjunction with building private housing).
For instance, my aunt and uncle own a home that they have put a lot of time, effort, and money into making nicer because they wanted a nice place to live for the rest of their life. They didn't make it nicer because they wanted to sell it, and they enjoy living in the area. This seems fine to me, although would probably be unallowed under Vaush's proposal because drastic changes to living spaces doesn't seem like a viable thing under such a system. However, under a price controlled system, they'd still be allowed to improve their home as much as they want, it's just that if they decided to sell it, they wouldn't be able to expect much of a return on investment.
I think the main problem with Vaush's proposal is that he forgets the main reason to be doing any of this, which is to maximize human happiness and minimize suffering. The problem with the current system is that people either don't have a place to live or are spending too much of their money on their housing. While his system adequately addresses these flaws, it also has the side effect of limiting people's enjoyment and attachment to the place that they live. Renting is the main problem in the current society (if everyone was paying off a mortgage for their living space rather than renting, I'm sure they'd be a lot more happy about paying the price), yet Vaush's solution to this is to force everyone to live under renting conditions (although with the notable benefit that renting is free).
Honestly, I've always liked the idea of abolishing rent, making it so that even if you're living in an apartment, you own that apartment much like a homeowner owns a home. The building itself (made up of many apartments) would then be owned and operated much like a worker co-op, with tenants in the building voting on building wide problems, rules, and regulations (such as no pets or other things, more structural regulations would obviously be under the purview of the government, as is the case for home ownership). I also feel as though this solution is much more politically viable and reasonable than what Vaush is recommending.
As for multiple home ownership, I would place a severe tax on owned homes that remain unoccupied for more than half the year (over the limit of 2 homes). This means that people can still own multiple houses (because some people live in 2 places for multiple months for work, family, etc.) but any more than that and you are placing a severe burden on society and are taxed as a result. On the other hand, if the home is occupied, then no tax is placed because it's no longer representing a burden.
Overall, I think that the biggest problem with Vaush's idea is that it is too utopian. The government is already a powerful enough entity to begin with, and giving it more power over people's lives is a bad idea. Governments must be created with the understanding that they will be corrupted at some point in time (as is human nature), so it should have only as much power as we would be willing to grant to a corrupt individual. This is the whole philosophy behind the checks and balances system (although that is currently failing, kind of proving my point). Even if Vaush became dictator for a few years to perfectly implement his solution, afterwards returning the power of governance back to the democratic process, the system would eventually fail, and giving a corrupt political leader the ability to determine where people live and under what conditions is absolutely too much power for them to have. This is the authoritarian undertone that chat was observing but unable to put into words. Very weird that the libertarian Vaush would fail to notice this.
I think this was expertly put
@@DoctorCJDM I appreciate that :)
Take a boat tour of your nearest beach and look at all the houses littering the coast line. Then remind yourself that all those houses cost 3+ million dollars each, and the people who live there are the people who don't want affordable housing built near them, because having poor people like you living near them will drive down their property values. Once you've done all that, revisit the thought of decommodified housing and see if your opinion changes
Chat literally thinking anything better than hell on earth is entirely impossible or actually bad.
This would be great me speaking as a black agave person born and raised and currently living in the hood I grew up in. This would make it easy and affordable for me to leave the drab area I've know all my life. I do live 20 minutes for my work currently but living in an apartment I don't own that I had to use my own money and resources to make livable in place of saving to go to a better place . This sounds like a win to me.
Damn chat was more unhinged than when Vaush talks about mental health or something! god damn! Keyboard warriors take a break dudes!!
as someone who is set to inherit a very expensive house in the middle of bumfuck nowhere from family idgaf about, I am 100% ok with housing being decomodified, take it away gov, Ill sell it to ya for 50% off even
*"You live in a society.. haven't you heard this?"*
Love you, Vaush
Ahhhhhh, Im dying from the arguement with chat. Holy moly what vaush describes would be massively better then the system we already have in pretty much every way.
Yeah Vaush wasn't kidding when he said his chat needs to touch grass and that they don't act nice towards him.
The "no offense vaush but your favourite colour is brown >:(" is such an out of pocket comment when vaush was making a joke about how America forgot colours, and how he likes how colourful Indian clothing is.
Things that should be free to access for all:
1. Housing (Same for all, but if you work harder, you can get a bigger and better one)
2. Foods (Basic ones only. Luxurious foods should still be charged)
3. Electricity and Water (Within certain limits, then charged after that)
4. Healthcare (Completely free, no limit)
Rent would be “use” and not “rent”. Rent infers payment and private ownership. If ownership goes away so does rent so a new term would need to be applied.
Vaush I've got to say that you've brought this on yourself. I don't remember a stream of yours in *months* unashamedly advocating for socialism or even researching related topics, so it's no wonder that you end up with an audience full of libs. A very constructive follow-up to this stream would be checking out the Viennese public housing system, which is a model already existing in the world that has a lot of popularity with its constituents.
That's the Vaush cycle for you.
He lures in some liberals and normies with hot topic general discussions and then rinses the community with stuff like this, so that the worth while ones stay to learn more socialism in time.
Like looking for scraps of hold in the sand.
vaush explains the housing situation in china for twenty minutes and then argues with chatters who intentionally misconstrue what he’s saying because they’re so afraid of touching grass for and hour and fifteen minutes.
Vaush literally describing being the U.S military.
Evergrand been collapsing fir the last 2 years. Another problems is people have paid for the apartments that are now e.pty shell, deteriorating and never going to be habital. Many people are going to lose a lot.
The TEMU setup is to try and keep the people emplloyed to stave off any uprising by producing low quality items to export. They are probably doing this at a loss. The are a few good channels to get info on problems