[pbhjpbhj]

I think you're locked into a Capitalist view there.

What you say amounts to "without rich people to pay every time they do some work poor people wouldn't be able to build houses". I don't buy it. I think it's perfectly possible to organise society without the driving force being "how can we as a society benefit this tiny cadre of super-rich people without pissing-off everyone else enough that they revolt".

Of course you need to wrest control from the people who can buy "mind control", and vote to allow corruption from the ruling party (cf UK parliament yesterday).

>All of this extra development spurred by investment money pouring in leads to lower rents for everyone //

The more we give to the rich the cheaper everything will be for us plebs, yeah, you're going to have to spend a bit more on your PR to press that idea home.

[mrep]

Who are you suggesting to build houses for rent then? The government? I would love some examples of where that actually went well.

[necovek]

Check out home ownership rates: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ow...

Countries ranking at the top have had a few decades of government provided homes (communist countries).

Now, they are not the most prosperous countries in the world, but my theory is that it's exactly because there is not as big a pressure to work just to have a roof over your head. Which is why foreigners frequently comment on the easygoing attitude and carelessness they see in people.