Socialism

I love this video because it really concisely breaks down what needs to be done, in a common-sense way. Countries thinking they can solve their problems while skipping the most important step the PRC and other socialist countries took - eliminating the parasitic landlord class and nationalizing industry and finance, are deluded.

Paul Cockshott - Obstacles to the China path in Latin America.

They goofed.

"It's CH, right?"

So which Chi is it?

Chinese military bases in Chile AND Mexico AND Greenland

One is Long Country, the other is Long March. Same difference, right?

In Spain at least, a lot of ppl live in what looks like highrise apartment buildings, but many are actually condos owned out right. I'm surprised that's not more of the case in France and Germany, just letting landlords gobble up real estate like the US.

Literally nobody I know is happy renting. They've all just accepted they can't afford buying.

It is a goal as far as I can tell from my social environment. It's just financially unachievable for most of them and me. Heck, my brother-in-law works at VW in a rather high up position and still says it's not realistic to them. At least not without moving to a different state.

There is a subsection of the population mostly made up of pensioniers that occupy flats with ~30-70 year old renting contracts that mean through a web of interdependent laws they pay reasonable accomodation for their dwellings, close to, sometimes under, maybe slightly over upkeep.

That is entirely a privilege of having moved into a state or workers coop-built appartement in the 60s or 70s at the latest though and is entirely irreproducable to anyone born after that fact. Homeownership in germany is not seen as a goal on account of people having given up on a pipedream they'll never reach anyways for the most part. It's basically not possible for large swathes of the population born in the 1980s and onwards.

Incidentally, germany is a hotbed of money laundering and storing for organized crime in the EU because the laws around buying and selling houses are set up in a way that makes it incredibly easy to basically nullify any search and discovery or building enforcement on them because as it stands it pits, if I transliterate to an americanized audience, Cletus the slack jawed Yokel from Nowhere, PA against Shadow Housing Dealings S.A.R.L. (registered to a cyprese postbox that currently resides at the deep end of the mariana trench). Nothing will ever be done about this because the same laws also benefits people like former health minister / organized crime head Jens Spahn when he is gifted a multimillion flat that not even convicted journalists can get info on

Might also have something to do with tenants having so many rights that they just don't have many of the disadvantages they'd have in other countries.

Same, looking at my peers, none of them own the home, maybe 1/5 has a mortgage, and the rest either rent or live with parents.

Was about to say, 66 sounds unreal but then again would explain how insane the politics are

because a lot of them are owned by boomers, unless the age distribution of people you know are equal, the home owner percentage will not reflect the same.

Also it makes sense that a country with majority homeowners will oppose to any policies that can fix housing problems.

wildly skewed towards old people

Yeah, it's probably misreporting and probably also, "well they have a tiny hut for all members of the family in this god forsaken village while being stuck in eternal poverty, but that's enough to call it a house"

India is often dishonest with their data. Many politicians will lie to save face. But even if the numbers are "real", it's worth asking yourself what they are considering a home. Plenty of people live in scrap houses on land they don't own, are they "homeowners" in this data. India has squatters rights, if they can't be removed from someone else's property they've lived in for decades are they "homeowners" in this data? If someone's has a live in servant who has a separated house on their property, are they "homeowners"? My guess is that india is defining homeowners very loosely.

It'd be worth looking into their source there.

I think with "awas" yojnas more homeowners are there

Its also really surprising to me that western europe, especially germany, being a front line of the cold war, doesn't have higher home-ownership rates. These are very rich imperial-core countries, which had huge infusions of resources from the US to raise standards of living after WW2 and provide a more appealing "alternative to communism". Yet home-ownership is still pretty low in a lot of these welfare states.

Nobody "owns" land. Even under capitalism. If you think you do, stop paying the ~~rent~~ tax you pay the government in order to "own" that land and see what happens.

Point is, even if you "own" a house, if the government decides they want to confiscate it, they have a whole army to do it. All ownership is always at the mercy of the government. (More accurately, ownership is at the mercy of whoever has the monopoly on violence, since they can only take ownership through it.)

Other than the set duration, all ownership is at the government's pleasure everywhere. Luckily, in a lot of places governments serve at the pleasure of voters.