←back to thread

115 points harambae | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
christkv ◴[] No.46208173[source]
I'm as pro capitalism as it comes but private equity should not be allowed to operate in the consumer housing market. They can develop and sell houses but cannot hold is my point of view.
replies(6): >>46208224 #>>46208259 #>>46208308 #>>46208319 #>>46208367 #>>46208408 #
jack_tripper ◴[] No.46208224[source]
Same. I remember growing up in the 90s, after the fall of communism, hearing that capitalism beat communism because in capitalism you can own things.

MFW I now live in capitalism and can't afford to own anything.

replies(2): >>46208300 #>>46208677 #
ReptileMan ◴[] No.46208300[source]
One of the things communism did right was housing - in the Eastern Bloc home ownership was above 90%. The quality was not great, not terrible. But bad shelter is infinitely better than no shelter. I also think that it also excelled in K12 education. Whether because the german style system that was common in europe pre WWII was just left alone - I don't know. But until the mid 90s we really didn't had the school reformers to fuck it up. Right now we are as good as producing illiteracy as the rest of the west.
replies(1): >>46208685 #
thephyber ◴[] No.46208685[source]
What does “home ownership” mean in a country where there is no private property?
replies(2): >>46208743 #>>46208927 #
ReptileMan ◴[] No.46208743[source]
There was a lot of private property in the socialist countries. I am not sure from where this thought even came to you. What was impossible was owning big private enterprise. But small businesses - like a restaurant or a shoe repair shop were allowed. You were also allowed to own houses, cars, appliances, clothes and almost everything else. Land was a bit weird - you could own, but not too much - basically stuff that was small enough to evade the collectivisation process.
replies(1): >>46210059 #
1. iberator ◴[] No.46210059{3}[source]
Just about right!