[fn-mote]

> Thats why housing should never be part of a market, because people don't want houses, people need houses.

I don't understand this at all.

A market is designed to solve the problem of allocation of resources (think: scarce).

Can you state your non-market proposal to provide housing (in economic terms)? Sorry, but the idea of managing allocation of resources without a market is very foreign to me. I just don't know what you're proposing, and I can't imagine how it would work.

Separately - not much talk about the importance of location. NYC housing is expensive... why live in NYC?

[vouwfietsman]

I don't know where you're from, but it's generally known under the name "public housing" and is basically a gigantic success throughout many western countries. So much so, that its systematic demolition throughout the neoliberal glory-years of the 80/90s has caused serious housing crises throughout those countries, which we are now stuck with.

Managing resources without a market is actually quite simple: you work out what people actually need, and what you have, and you divide what you have over the people that need it.

This might sound weird because we're bringing it up in the context of housing, but it's something we do all the time everywhere. Some good examples here are: healthcare, insurance, infrastructure, military, utilities, public transport, science, education, etc. Basically anything your taxes go to is managed this way, its pretty boring stuff.

Most of these things have long histories of socialist community-thinking that make them very obvious shared resources that are placed outside markets, but somehow housing missed the boat. This does not make housing significantly different in any way though: one can own a mansion just like one can own a Tesla, it does not prevent public housing or public transport from existing, nor does it adversely affect the market from profiting off luxury goods where common goods are freely available. The trouble is, a house is now a luxury, even though you can feel in your guts that this is just not true.

The market effect on housing should decide the quality of house that you have, not whether you have a house at all.

[worik]

> Can you state your non-market proposal to provide housing (in economic terms)? Sorry, but the idea of managing allocation of resources without a market is very foreign to me. I just don't know what you're proposing, and I can't imagine how it would work.

Easy. There are so many options. Here is one:

Establish housing trusts, whose purpose of existence is to house people. Non profit (that is not their purpose) . No debt, start them off with a huge wad of cash. Allow them to build, convert, do what ever.

Such a trust can set up its own systems for allocation, but not entirely at whim. There can be political control too.

Allow an occupation right where tenants cannot be evicted for no reason (that can be applied to all housing, and in civilised places it is - not where I live amongst barbarians)

Not perfect, nothing is.

There is no need to outlaw private property or private land lords, there will still be niches for them. But the great mass of rental housing could be supplied by such trusts.

> but the idea of managing allocation of resources without a market is very foreign to me

Please open yur mind, look into some economic history, look around the world. Markets are not the only solution to allocation and markets can reach terrible equilibriums.

The Irish Potato Famine happened in a free market. Markets can even be genocidal.