Vice President Kamala Harris has rolled out several initiatives as part of her housing plan. She wants to incentivize builders to create 3 million units of affordable housing and develop a $25,000 housing credit for first-time homebuyers. Harris’s housing goals have been widely dissected by the media, showing that the nationwide housing problem is top of mind for many people.
Harris believes that former president Trump has it all wrong when it comes to solving the housing crunch. In her Aug. 16,2024, political rally, she stated, “If his Project 2025 agenda is put into effect, it will add around $1,200 a year to the typical American mortgage. He’s got it backward. We should be doing everything we can to make it more affordable to buy a home, not less.”
Yes, next question.
“Always” is a pretty strong word here. In some cases this is true, but in others it’s not.
For example, if you live in an area where all of the public schools are terrible, you’re going to want to look for other options. If the private schools in your area are way better (and hopefully affordable) then you would want to send your kids there. Public schools can also compare/see what private schools are doing that’s working, and update their policy/curriculum to improve themselves.
Privatizing public libraries is a terrible idea and is currently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.
Removing all privatization from the entire economy is where we end up with command economies or communism which means that we end up with a lot of monopolies. There isn’t much of an incentive for innovation in those economies. Then you’re either living under some crazy dictatorship, or the country is falling apart and they are forced to change how their economy works.
Privatization helps people who can afford to not be in a situation where they are choosing between only shitty options. The point of a (good) public system is that it’s a consistent, good baseline for ALL people regardless of their socio-economic status.
So in your example, sure, if you can afford it you can put your kid into private school or simply move but what about your neighbors? Can they as well? Society functions best when everyone has fair equity.
where all of the public schools are terrible
…from having no money
you’re going to want to look for other options
…if you have money
If the private schools in your area are way better
…funded
then you would want to send your kids there
…and your money
Public schools can also compare/see what private schools are doing that’s working
…like having money
and update their policy/curriculum to improve themselves
…like by enacting a policy of having money
Privatization isn’t allowing a private options, it’s selling the public one. If public schools suck we shouldn’t sell them to a profit seeking company
It certainly doesn’t help healthcare or education prices when you privatize them.
Privatizing an industry it’s just another way to take something out of the public eye and turn it into a opportunity for the ultra rich to make more money.
Privatization and deregulation are the bread and butter of conservatives. Always works out real well for the owners while everyone else pays the bill.
Always works out real well for the owners while everyone else pays the bill.
Ironically, there’s a whole movement that directly fights that sentiment by deregulating the supply of housing. It’s called YIMBY. When housing is a rarity, it’s more expensive, so why not make more housing?
When we deregulate we must be very careful. Sometimes it’s good like saying that residential and commercial properties can be next to each other. Other times it puts the coal plant next to the kindergarten. You’ve gotta be careful to not throw the baby out with the leaded bath water
Privatization means a cut to services and profit is now the motive.
EVERY TIME YOU PRIVATIZE IT BECOMES MORE EXPENSIVE AMERICA.
Stop privatizing your power.
Privatizing anything will lead to higher prices.
The claim (which I think we should be comfortable calling a “lie” at this point) is that services provided by the government are almost inherently wasteful. Conservatives (it’s always conservatives) believe that civil servants (our neighbors) are overpaid and lazy. They believe that top level bureaucrats don’t have incentives for innovation and cost/waste minimization, and that top level executives in a for profit corporation do.
And the additional claim (“lie”) is that commercial profit incentives de facto lead to improved customer (citizen) outcomes.
However, I’ve never seen any long term data that supports ANY transition from public to private leading to either better innovation OR internal performance OR customer outcomes. I’ve also never seen data supporting the reverse (converse? inverse?) contention that nationalizing something corporate leads to worse innovation, performance, or outcomes.
Just for clarity I’m not looking for “data” from kleptocracies, oligarchies, military juntas, or other non free, non democratic, arguably non market based countries.
So basically only NATO, maybe EU, North America, Australia, Japan, South Korea… And I bet such data doesn’t exist (or exposes the lie).
