[HN Gopher] At the world's oldest social housing, rent hasn't ch...
___________________________________________________________________
At the world's oldest social housing, rent hasn't changed since
1521
Author : pseudolus
Score : 229 points
Date : 2021-08-31 11:11 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
| dansky wrote:
| I walked around at the Fuggerei when I was in Augsburg back in
| 2019.
|
| Here is a video forwarding to the entrance:
| https://youtu.be/cECanw-2SQw?t=3100
| orblivion wrote:
| > Residents pay about $1.30 -- or 0.88 euros -- per year for
| their apartments
|
| The Euro didn't exist in 1521. Wikipedia doesn't even list what
| the currency was back then:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_of_Germany
|
| I suppose it would have been priced in some sort of metal back
| then, and the first official currencies would have been on a
| metallic standard.
| pweezy wrote:
| From the original article:
|
| > Fugger charged residents one Rheinischer gulden a year, the
| equivalent of one month's salary at the time.
| orblivion wrote:
| Ah, sorry. I tried skimming and searching for some specific
| like that.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| No shit sherlock...
| zaarn wrote:
| Back then Germany didn't exist quite yet as country. Fugger
| charged people in Augsburg in Rheinische Gulden.
| orblivion wrote:
| I was still expecting that Wikipedia would list the
| historical currencies in the area, and they did list some.
| Presumably there was continuity of culture over the centuries
| despite political bodies and boundaries.
| peterburkimsher wrote:
| Like happened with the Doom port to desk phones, this is being
| discussed over on the BeWelcome forums!
|
| https://bewelcome.org/forums/s23259/
|
| BeWelcome is like CouchSurfing but free and open-source. I heard
| about the Fuggerei from Paul, a guy in Singapore, a few months
| ago, who I met at the Asia-Pacific weekly meetup (every Thursday,
| 23:00 NZDT = 6 pm Jakarta = 7 pm UTC+8).
|
| https://bewelcome.org/activities/3343
|
| It's so interesting to hear the same topics coming up. Although
| I'm not Catholic, and the idea of segregating housing based on
| religious views bothers me, I like the idea of investing in a
| community by sharing freely. The Fuggerei outlasted several
| political forms in Germany!
| IkmoIkmo wrote:
| In a world with ubiquitous housing, there is no need for social
| housing, because that which is ubiquitous (oxygen) is affordable.
|
| In a world with scarcity, social housing protects the poor
| against unaffordability. That's commendable. However, scarcity
| also means there is not enough for everyone.
|
| Inevitably that means you get a group of poor winners (who obtain
| a social home) and a group of and poor losers (who remain on a
| waiting list for a social home).
|
| Those on a waiting list are relegated to the non-social sector:
| paying market rates. The more social housing there is, the
| smaller the private housing market is, the higher the rent
| prices.
|
| Thereby, the scarcer the situation is, the more unaffordable
| housing is, the bigger the calls for social housing, and the more
| the differences between winners & losers is exacerbated.
|
| That's what we see develop in many cities . Some pay absolutely
| nothing, others pay way too much. The winners and losers group is
| often partially arbitrary. The benefits of rent-control are
| distributed unequally, some receiving rent-controlled benefits
| for decades, others remain on a waiting list for decades, while
| earning just as little. In many European cities waiting lists are
| >10y, in Amsterdam for example it's about 14y.
|
| Second, the benefits of rent-control take away various healthy
| market-based incentives. My dad for example lives on welfare in
| an apartment with 3 bedrooms, by himself in the capital city, and
| pays 1/3rd of the market rate. He has no incentive to seek out
| smaller housing which suits his needs just fine. Similarly, he
| does not make much use of the cultural offerings in the capital
| city that makes this place popular and expensive: theatre, bars,
| cinema, restaurants etc, he would be fine living in a smaller
| town without them. Yet, he has no incentive.
|
| A market based rent for my dad would indeed make it unaffordable
| for him. At the same time, the market price is a way to allocate
| supply & demand efficiently. My single retired dad has no demand
| for the size and location of his home, yet it is in extreme
| demand by others. The high market rate rent of say $2k a month,
| if applied, weeds out those who're unwilling to pay the price of
| $2k worth of opportunity costs (high value for my dad) in return
| for 3 bedrooms in the capital city (low value for my dad, who'd
| decide to move in), and lets those who's calculus is different
| (high value for young urban professionals) move in. Rent-control
| destroys that efficiency.
|
| Second, it obviously puts a cap on prices and rental returns.
| Price elasticity of supply is at least somewhat elastic (more in
| the US than say, the Netherlands, but still). If industry X has
| fixed prices and industry Y doesn't, ceteris paribus you'd expect
| most investments in production/supply of industry Y because the
| returns aren't capped. Rent-control in this sense can limit
| housing construction, exacerbating the problem further down the
| line. (This is less applicable to Europe which has more high-
| density built up areas that are more land-constrained than the
| US. As such, higher prices don't always translate into more
| construction, which means the downsides of rent-control are
| smaller in this respect).
|
| I'm a big fan of rent-control, but it has to be balanced with
| (partial) incentives. There seem to me some easy mechanisms that
| should be applied to bring more balance.
|
| 1) Rent-control is not enjoyed permanently, such as in many
| countries is the case. Instead, one gets 8 years of rent-control,
| after which you must move, or pay market rate. This brings
| balance to the current situation where one person has a rent-
| controlled apartment forever, and another is on a waiting list
| for 16 years. While de facto forced eviction after 8 years is
| obviously bad, it's a lesser evil compared to the above
| distribution of scarce rent-controlled units.
|
| 2) If a rent-controlled unit has 3 bedrooms and you live there
| alone, you lose some of the rent discounts. It's okay to live as
| you like, alone or with others. It's not okay to live alone in a
| home that can house multiple people, and expect others (the
| government/taxpayer or landlord) to subsidise you, while there's
| people on waiting lists for decades. We actually have a lot of
| real estate, in almost all countries the number of people per
| home has been dropping for decades, while the average home size
| has been increasing for decades. Yet there is a scarcity of
| housing, in part because people occupy larger homes than they
| need. Particularly if the home is subsidised and rent-controlled,
| that shouldn't be acceptable.
|
| 3) Rent-controlled rates should have market-based foundations. In
| the Netherlands for example, a rent-controlled unit in Amsterdam
| or a shrinking village of 500 people, is governed by the same
| maximum rental rates. Despite the fact that market rates might be
| 4-5x as high in Amsterdam. It's important to subsidise the poor.
| It's also important not to take away every single incentive, and
| create 1 price for a thousand different locations which are all
| in wildly different demand. If homes in city A and B are priced
| similarly due to rent-control, but many want to live in A, those
| who're indifferent to living in city A will occupy homes
| unnecessarily. If minor price differences are allowed and A is
| slightly more expensive than B, it'd incentivise those living in
| A who're indifferent to A or B, to move to B due to the lower
| prices, freeing up in-demand homes in A. Rent-control is
| commendable but it should allow for some level of market rates,
| still.
|
| Hope the post makes sense as some of it is written from an EU and
| even national/city-level perspective that doesn't apply
| everywhere in the same way.
| pydry wrote:
| >Second, the benefits of rent-control take away various healthy
| market-based incentives. My dad for example lives on welfare in
| an apartment with 3 bedrooms, by himself in the capital city,
| and pays 1/3rd of the market rate. He has no incentive to seek
| out smaller housing which suits his needs just fine.
|
| Whereas if you allow market rate on all apartments you've given
| landlords collecting rent an incentive to impede all kinds of
| property development which might bring rents down with
| NIMBYism.
|
| If they are leveraged landlords who risk going underwater on
| their mortgage if too much supply comes on the market you've
| created a veritable NIMBY zealot who will show up to every town
| planning meeting and throw sand in the gears of new development
| and vote down every social housing program that might impede
| supply.
|
| Will your dad? Doubtful.
|
| Rent control wasnt ever a clean, ideal fix (land value taxes
| are) but they're a band aid solution to rent seeking driven
| evictions - especially of the frail and elderly.
| imtringued wrote:
| Speaking of land value taxes, I fully understand that
| homeowners do not want to be kicked out but there has to be a
| middle ground.
|
| A progressive land tax would tax owner occupied housing less
| but then collect the shortfall when the owner sells his land.
| If for any reason the owner cannot pay, he can apply to defer
| taxes for 5 years which then result in eviction if the taxes
| are still due and the property will automatically be upzoned
| to prevent future evictions.
|
| Land owned by companies does not qualify as owner occupied to
| prevent share deals.
|
| Property investors will face increasingly higher land value
| taxes the more land they own in a single location. The idea
| is that instead of investing in thousands of plots in the
| same top 10 cities they will have a presence in multiple
| different cities. This should result in competition between
| landlords instead of regional consolidation like ISPs have
| done in the US.
|
| And now the cherry on top. Deduct paid land value taxes from
| taxable income of the tenant or owner occupant. Finally,
| lower income taxes across the board and remove the deduction.
|
| Ok, enough about land value taxes. The reason why I
| personally am against rent control is actually the reason why
| a minimum wage works. Supply and demand aren't perfectly
| inelastic. Raising the minimum wage turns the government into
| a union. But the real question is, who does this hypothetical
| union serve? People imagine that it will help minimum wage
| workers but that is just a story to sell the policy. The
| truth is that it works because the only people impacted by
| the policy are the poor. Any market distortion that the
| minimum wage achieves primarily benefits those who are below
| the previous level. If corporations are cash rich they can
| simply afford the higher wages so unemployment isn't as big a
| deal as the theory tells us. The downside of losing jobs that
| pay less than minimum wage may be overstated because those
| jobs merely save the government a few dollars on welfare but
| do not contribute to a meaningful existence.
|
| Now, if a minimum wage has an impact on the poor then who
| does rent control have an impact on? Rent control is a price
| ceiling. Who is paying the most for rent? Of course, those
| who can afford high rents. There are lots of high end
| apartments that are simply not meant for low income people in
| which reliable and affluent tenants live in. Yet rent control
| starts with the most expensive housing first. Poor tenants
| are usually paying bottom or mid end housing. It doesn't
| reach them at all. What often happens as a result is that
| landlords raise rent on low and mid end housing to compensate
| for losses on high end housing. In my opinion people who
| advocate for rent control simply do not understand the policy
| they vote for.
|
| It's a ban on renting in a market that badly needs more
| rental units.
| gruez wrote:
| >Whereas if you allow market rate on all apartments you've
| given landlords collecting rent an incentive to impede all
| kinds of property development which might bring rents down
| with NIMBYism.
|
| that assumes rent control actually brings down rents
| (overall), and landlords aren't baking it into the price.
| When the government forces landlords to give tenants an
| indefinite call option on housing (ie. rent control), I doubt
| landlords are just going to carry on business as usual. The
| call option has a cost, and that will be incorporated into
| the cost of future tenants' rents.
| pydry wrote:
| It assumes only that rent control controls rents.
|
| Are you saying that if landlords are required to enact rent
| control they have the power to unilaterally raise future
| market rents in response?
| gruez wrote:
| > It assumes only that rent control controls rents.
|
| ...for the current tenant. When he leaves it goes up to
| make up for it, and then some to make up for the free
| call option.
| pydry wrote:
| I'm struggling to see why you think landlords would be
| able to charge above market rate once rent control ends.
|
| (or alternatively, why they would choose to leave money
| on the table and rent below market rent if they weren't
| subjected to rent control)
|
| It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that they would
| (minor exceptions excluded) charge anything _other_ than
| market rent.
| gruez wrote:
| > I'm struggling to see why you think landlords would be
| able to charge above market rate once rent control ends.
|
| It won't be above market rate, but the market rate will
| go up to account for the call option. It's like if the
| city mandated all landlords to install AC (assume for
| this example this is for a region where most units don't
| have AC). Since this cost is applicable to most
| landlords, the landlords collectively will raise their
| rent because their costs have gone up.
| pydry wrote:
| As far as I can see it's _exactly_ like being mandated to
| install AC - in that it would not change supply of
| housing and it would not change demand for housing.
|
| That is, unless there was a non-negligible number of
| landlords who would be _so infuriated_ with spending,
| say, $2k on installing AC that they would take their
| house off the market (but not sell it) and therefore
| willingly forego, say, $2k of rent every single month.
|
| I don't see that as plausible, though. If you have an
| unsold rental unit doing nothing but collecting dust
| you're _wasting_ money. In rent controlled cities like SF
| /NYC almost by definition rent is high, so these
| theoretical landlords would be leaving a _lot_ of money
| on the table so if you think this effect is real you are
| obligated to assume that these landlords are behaving in
| an irrational manner.
| leetcrew wrote:
| the pre-AC prices are already in equilibrium. mandating
| AC increases the cost of supplying housing, so it
| disturbs that equilibrium. who actually absorbs that
| increased cost depends on the elasticity of demand. for
| highly elastic goods, the producer/seller loses more of
| their surplus (ie, they cover most of the cost increase).
| but with a highly inelastic good like housing in a
| desirable location, it is much more likely that the
| consumer covers the larger part of the cost increase.
|
| this is basically equivalent to the effect of elasticity
| on tax incidence. you can view the cost of AC or forgone
| rent from rent control as a sort of tax.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand#
| Eff...
|
| another good example of an inelastic good is gas. people
| who commute can't easily change the amount of fuel they
| consume. if the gas tax goes up, or a barrel of oil
| becomes more expensive, your local gas station doesn't
| just make it up from their margin. they increase their
| prices, regardless of how accustomed people were to the
| previous price.
|
| tl;dr: the fact that a landlord can charge more after
| being forced to install AC does not imply that they could
| have just increased rent in the first place if they
| weren't so stupid.
| pydry wrote:
| What tax incidence is is extremely clear to me.
|
| A careful reading of my previous comment should make it
| clear that I alluding to precisely that, in fact. Also it
| was explaining why it would 90%+ fall on the landlord in
| high rent locales like NYC/SF.
|
| Why you think it shouldn't fall on the landlord in high
| rent markets just because the supply of property is
| relatively inelastic isn't so clear to me.
| leetcrew wrote:
| do you not agree that housing demand in nyc/sf is highly
| inelastic then? the rest kinda follows from that. or are
| you arguing that the supply itself is even more inelastic
| than the demand?
|
| I think part of the problem with this example is that $2k
| is just not very much money compared to rental income in
| those areas. I agree, it is hard to imagine landlords
| dropping out of a market where they can rent a studio for
| $2500+/month over a one-time $2000 expense. I argue it
| would still happen at the margins, but it might result in
| a market rent increase that is below the noise floor.
|
| still, it is a mistake to assume that all HCOL landlords
| are making money hand over fist. places with high rents
| tend to also have high price-to-rent ratios. landlords
| with recently purchased, mortgaged properties might not
| be making much profit, even with sky-high rents. if a lot
| of landlords are in this situation, the supply could be
| surprisingly elastic.
| pydry wrote:
| >do you not agree that housing demand in nyc/sf is highly
| inelastic then? the rest kinda follows from that. or are
| you arguing that the supply itself is even more inelastic
| than the demand?
|
| Relatively inelastic, but not as inelastic as supply.
| There are people who would gladly move to NYC tomorrow if
| rents were cheaper and vice versa.
|
| >I think part of the problem with this example is that
| $2k is just not very much money compared to rental income
| in those areas. I agree, it is hard to imagine landlords
| dropping out of a market where they can rent a studio for
| $2500+/month over a one-time $2000 expense.
|
| Ergo why the incidence falls squarely on the landlord.
|
| This also explains why they bitch the most about things
| like property tax hikes and building regs while renters
| do not care. A double whammy of it hits their net profit
| _and_ hits the value of their property because it reduces
| the profit it can generate.
|
| >still, it is a mistake to assume that all HCOL landlords
| are making money hand over fist.
|
| Right. If they're not it's because they're leveraged in
| which case there is even LESS reason to suppose that they
| would be the cause of a drop in supply because instead of
| not making as much as they could by not renting their
| apartment out, they'll be LOSING money hand over fist.
|
| I do agree that property _prices_ will likely bake in the
| cost of having to install aircon or having to abide by
| rent control regulations. It might be the proverbial
| "last" straw for some who might sell up but that won't
| reduce supply because they'll sell it on to somebody else
| who will rent it out (or live in it).
|
| I also believe that what say may be right in, say, rural
| Alabama where rent control might well disincentivize the
| construction of new housing where land is not at a
| premium. But, NYC is a different kettle of fish.
| rory wrote:
| > _Whereas if you allow market rate on all apartments you 've
| given landlords collecting rent an incentive to impede all
| kinds of property development which might bring rents down_
|
| This incentive still exists if only _some_ of the apartments
| are market rate, right?
| pydry wrote:
| Yes, amongst a smaller bloc with commensurately less power.
| rory wrote:
| Where does the power come from, in your model? Money?
| Apartments controlled?
| pydry wrote:
| Political power? Numbers. How else did you think
| development gets canceled in city planning meetings? When
| one person turns up out of 70 to impede development or
| when 50 do?
| rory wrote:
| Hm I'd never considered that angle. I buy that it is an
| effect, but I'm not confident it's general or stronger
| than other effects (often in the other direction).
|
| For instance, in my neighborhood, (market rate) landlords
| generally _want_ new residential development, because it
| 's seen as something that will have a gentrifying effect
| on the area and bring up property values in general. That
| mentality presumably doesn't apply to neighborhoods that
| are already rich, though.
| em500 wrote:
| To make the economics clearer: the Netherlands has a national
| rent ceiling of EUR737 for social (rent-controlled) housing
| (and very long waiting lists in all the cities). In Amsterdam,
| the market rent for a 3 bedroom is probably around EUR1500 to
| EUR2000 (tough social housing are usually worth a bit less due
| to somewhat lower quality). Your dad is subsidized in-kind by
| probably around EUR800/months, but he's forced to consume it in
| the form of a very specific dwelling which he apparently
| doesn't value all that much. If he had the choice, he'd
| probably rather take the EUR800 (or even less) in cash and move
| somewhere else. But that option is politically infeasible due
| to the bad optics, even though economically it would be a
| Pareto improvement.
| standardUser wrote:
| "If he had the choice, he'd probably rather take the EUR800
| (or even less) in cash and move somewhere else."
|
| This is how Section 8 vouchers work in the US. But unlike
| most welfare programs, the vouchers are limited and only a
| small portion of people who are eligible can get one.
| LambdaComplex wrote:
| > In a world with ubiquitous housing, there is no need for
| social housing, because that which is ubiquitous (oxygen) is
| affordable.
|
| > In a world with scarcity, social housing protects the poor
| against unaffordability. That's commendable. However, scarcity
| also means there is not enough for everyone.
|
| And in a world with landlords, housing can be both ubiquitous
| AND scarce! (At least in the USA, the number of vacant homes
| greatly outnumbers the number of homeless people in the
| country)
| saddlerustle wrote:
| It's a joke to suggest housing is ubiquitous in the US. The
| number of vacant homes in most metros in the US is less than
| one year's population growth, and as a fraction of housing
| stock at historical lows.
| woah wrote:
| This is a repeatedly debunked myth that does not stand up to
| the slightest scrutiny.
|
| First, the number of vacant homes. The vast majority of these
| at any given time are vacant because they are on the market,
| someone has signed a lease but not moved in yet, or they are
| undergoing repairs. Of the homes that are legitimately
| vacant, many of these are in very poor shape, and in areas
| where no one wants to live. Suggesting that these homes are a
| solution to homelessness means that you want to send homeless
| people to live in condemned structures with no running water
| an hour outside of Detroit.
|
| Second, the number of homeless. The number used in this
| factoid is only the number of chronically unhoused, often
| mentally ill homeless. These people need a lot of support and
| medical treatment. Sending them to live in a random vacant
| home, much less one with no running water an hour outside of
| Detroit, is not going to help them. But people spouting this
| factoid don't actually care about the homeless. They are
| simply a prop for a cute political point. If you counted the
| true number of homeless, sheltered, and housing-insecure
| folks, this dumb factoid wouldn't sound as good.
|
| Third, the entire concept. Vacancies are lowest in the areas
| in the country with the highest homeless populations. So the
| entire implication that some evil (probably foreign) real
| estate investors are causing homelessness is baseless. The
| reality is that vacancies are mostly associated with how
| competitive the real estate market is, which is associated
| with the economic opportunities in an area vs the supply of
| housing. Higher vacancies means it is easier to find a place,
| which means that landlords get nervous and drop the rents.
| There was a very clear demonstration of this in San Francisco
| during 2020 when a lot of renters left. Rents dropped by 1/4
| or more, while vacancies rose.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Correct. Landlording introduces additional competition in the
| housing market, making buying and renting costs go up, and
| that's why it's profitable even when a lot of homes stay
| empty and a lot of people struggle to survive.
|
| Add to that a political system that takes the side of large
| investors...
| sgregnt wrote:
| I don't buy what's presented without evidence. But just
| curious, in your opinion more competition is bad?
| treelovinhippie wrote:
| Plenty of studies floating around that bust the myth of supply-
| demand economics when it comes to housing.
|
| It's often the case that excess housing sits empty because that
| is the logical thing to do if you're treating housing like an
| investment vehicle.
|
| eg Australia has a population of 25 million and 1 million empty
| houses according to the last census. And the majority of the
| population live in cities which rank in the top 10 most
| expensive housing in the world.
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| One requirement is to do a "Furbitte" aka a prayer for the fugger
| so he can get forgiveness and remain in heaven/ leave purgatory.
| At least that is what i ve heard.
| loeg wrote:
| It covers this in more detail in the article.
|
| > Original residents of the Fuggerei were asked to offer three
| prayers a day for Jakob Fugger and his family. ...
|
| > "Jakob Fugger says they have to pray for him. Our
| administrator always says he is in heaven and will see if you
| do that. You are responsible for that," said Herzog.
|
| > In other words: that part of the deal is between residents
| and God.
| ajay-b wrote:
| It is always helpful when you have a wealthy supporter.
| zaarn wrote:
| Hey I live just a street down from there. It's an interesting
| place and Fugger was certainly one of the more interesting people
| to grace the face of the earth, though it looses it's charm if
| you see it on your daily commute.
| nanis wrote:
| > To be eligible to live in the village, applicants need to meet
| three basic criteria: they must demonstrate financial need, have
| lived in Augsburg for at least two years and be of Catholic
| faith. ... checks church registers to ensure they're Catholic
|
| So, standard economics at work: If prices are rigidly set at a
| low level, there will be rationing. There is the non-price
| rationing.
|
| > Roughly 160 residents live in the Fuggerei ... there are about
| 80 people on the waiting list ... applicants could be waiting
| years for a callback.
|
| And there is the persistent shortage.
| simlan wrote:
| And your point is ?
| arvindamirtaa wrote:
| Things cost money.
|
| Things that don't cost to buy at least as much as they cost
| to make, are not sustainable by definition and will be
| riddled with systemic problems like shortage, rationing, etc.
| [deleted]
| chongli wrote:
| I think their point is that this isn't really social housing,
| it's a perk for a very exclusive group of people. Not all
| that different from a waiting list for membership to an
| exclusive golf course.
| true_religion wrote:
| Exclusive being the community of poeple who paid taxes
| (i.e. the church tithe) for at least 2 years before they
| fell on hard times?
|
| It's hardly charity or a perk. It's basically a local
| government service.
| csomar wrote:
| It doesn't work even though the article is trying to portray
| this as a functional model and a solution to the housing
| crisis.
|
| > Money for maintaining the village comes from investments in
| forestry, real estate and entrance fees.
|
| It is just a charity with religious requirements.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| If shortage means it "doesn't work", it's not clear to me
| how exclusion based on income is any better, or indeed if
| these are actually substantially more than just two names
| for the same fundamental shortage problem.
| gruez wrote:
| >If shortage means it "doesn't work", it's not clear to
| me how exclusion based on income is any better
|
| because it provides some sort of objective measure for
| how badly you want it, and incentivizes/finances more
| housing developments.
| throwaway2048 wrote:
| if you are poor, it makes no difference how much you want
| it if you are fundamentally unable to afford it.
| gruez wrote:
| You're right. That is a flaw with the free market. A rich
| person mildly wanting something will outweigh a poor
| person desperately wanting something. That said, the
| alternatives aren't much better. A wait list doesn't have
| any concept of neediness. self-reporting is unreliable
| (everyone will just say they really want it). A neediness
| assessment (ie. auditing each applicant's neediness)
| could theoretically work, but requires time/resources,
| and still has biases (eg. people with "visible" problems
| probably will look more needy than someone with hidden
| ones). Moreover, none of other distribution methods
| incentivize further supply. A sibling comment covers
| this:
|
| >What makes dollars unique is that if you inject more
| dollars into the free market for a good, then ceteris
| paribus, you will cause more of that good to be produced.
| Whereas if you injected more bureaucratic know-how into
| the Canadian patient population, you'd merely cause more
| intense competition for the same fixed number of
| physician-hours.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28367611
| bigbob2 wrote:
| >What makes dollars unique is that if you inject more
| dollars into the free market for a good, then ceteris
| paribus, you will cause more of that good to be produced.
|
| If the video card shortage has taught us anything, it's
| that this is not always true.
| gruez wrote:
| I think you need to factor in timeframes here. The demand
| shock for silicon started less than 2 years ago. The time
| it takes to bring a fab online is much longer than that.
| More of the goods will be produced eventually, but the
| market can't materialize it out of thin air.
| bigbob2 wrote:
| I certainly hope that is the case, but I remember the
| Nvidia CEO (it has been a while so things may be
| different now) saying they would not increase production
| because they were worried the demand surge was temporary.
| So long as crypto is profitable I don't see where any
| amount of production increase is going to stabilize the
| price. Maybe Ethereum PoS will fix this? Or will another
| PoW cryptocurrency just take its place?
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Ah, my shortages are good, your shortages are bad. Makes
| sense.
| gruez wrote:
| I have a feeling you're being sarcastic, but that's
| exactly what I'm arguing for. If your city only has
| enough housing for 100,000 people, but there are 150,000
| people who want to live there, there's going 50,000 who
| can't get a house. In other words, a shortage. That's
| bad, but that number is going to be the same regardless
| of how you're redistributing it. The question then
| becomes, can we make the best out of a bad situation?
| Distributing by price has benefits that I mentioned. What
| benefits does giving giving it for below-market prices to
| people whoever's first on a waiting list provide?
| dbingham wrote:
| Except, if you'd ever paid any attention to housing
| markets in any major city they don't work this way. There
| are too many other factors and incentives at play. Not
| least of which is that the profit motive drives
| developers and landlords to keep costs as high as they
| possibly can, and they all share that motivation, so you
| end up with convergent price fixing - where they all just
| naturally compete on things other than price with out
| actually colluding to do that.
|
| Markets rarely actually work as advertised.
| luckylion wrote:
| They do though. It's just that there's so much regulation
| and other problems that they can't adjust fast enough.
|
| I've lived in Hamburg, Germany, adjacent to an expanding
| hipster area. Rents rose steadily and every vacant lot
| was being built upon, industrial zones were repurposed
| for more housing etc. It's just that that still only
| gives you a fraction of the apartments you'd need to
| satisfy demand.
|
| If there was no incentive for investment, I'm sure we'd
| see even fewer new houses being built, because there's no
| incentive for the state to move, neither fast nor at all.
| cycomanic wrote:
| It only works though if income distribution is somewhat
| sane and people actually buy the housing to live or for
| renting out. The issue is that a small part of the
| population is so rich that they can afford many
| apartments/houses without living in them or renting them
| out. Those individuals have often enough market weight
| that they can distort the market all by themselves.
| Creating an arbitrary shortage to drive up prices for
| example
| flavius29663 wrote:
| In the article, if you can't get in, you're out.
|
| In a price defined shortage, there are always
| alternatives, it's not so black and white:
|
| - you can get a smaller apartment
|
| - you can get a not so nice apartment, but with space
|
| - you can get an apartment further away from points of
| interest, meaning it's cheaper but you have a longer
| commute
|
| This is very similar to free market for groceries: in
| communism you don't get groceries on the shelves. You get
| them only if you are lucky enough to be around when a
| delivery is made.
|
| In capitalism, some groceries might be more expensive,
| but you can always buy cheaper ones, or travel longer to
| buy from cheaper stores.
| pessimizer wrote:
| You talk about these options as if they are selection
| dilemmas rather than an optimization problem, and
| discussing trading time and effort for price as if time
| and effort are unlimited resources. If you're going to
| pretend time and effort are unlimited, why not pretend
| funds are, also?
| flavius29663 wrote:
| time is not unlimited, where did I say that? But you can
| commute 1 hour away and get much cheaper rents in almost
| any location on Earth. You trade off one extra hour each
| way for some cash.
| nanis wrote:
| > exclusion based on income
|
| Exclusion based on price.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| No, when there is any housing shortage it is a matter of
| empirical fact that landlords select on the income
| prospective renters can prove.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| The article made no such claims of being able to solve any
| housing crisis, merely that 160 people can live in a way
| they otherwise wouldn't be able to.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| Not just rationing, but discriminating based on personal
| benefit to the provider.
|
| This is a soul-buying operation, ironic since Catholics aren't
| supposed to buy and sell souls.
| javert wrote:
| Seems doubtful that the patron _actually believed_ that
| people praying for him would help him in the afterlife.
|
| But maybe I'm totally misunderstanding the medieval mind.
| JackFr wrote:
| > Seems doubtful that the patron actually believed that
| people praying for him would help him in the afterlife.
|
| Why does that seem doubtful? There are many people (myself
| included) who feel that way today.
| javert wrote:
| Well, I'm aware that there are people that believe this
| stuff today. But Jakob Fugger, if you actually read about
| his life, does not appear to have a moral bone in his
| body in the Catholic sense. That informed my comment. I
| personally suspect the village was done for show or as
| some sort of appeasement, not out of genuine faith.
|
| Separately, I don't think we as a society that strives to
| be rational, should be open to claims of belief based on
| faith. I think they should be immediately discarded as
| arbitrary claims. Just an FYI, let's steer away from that
| particular topic (i.e. the legitimacy of believing some
| part of Catholic doctrine).
| corpdronejuly wrote:
| You are absolutely misunderstanding the medieval mind, and
| many modern religious minds.
|
| Many people today believe in the power of prayer for the
| dead to help the state of the souls of the departed. Not a
| majority, but enough that you probably know a few who don't
| speak about it precisely because of the incredulity people
| express when people _actually believe_ their religion,
| especially Christianity.
| javert wrote:
| Including the people who manufacture the sale of
| indulences for their own personal profit? Do they
| _really_ believe in the tenet of having living people
| pray for the dead? Is the medieval mind capable of such
| cognitive dissonance? More importantly, is the _modern_
| mind capable of it?
| eesmith wrote:
| Is rationing ... bad?
|
| How would raising the rent change the wait time for ground
| floor housing? By forcing poor people to move out because
| richer people want to move in?
|
| That doesn't sound like a good thing.
|
| According to standard economics, since there's a demand, why
| isn't there other, new housing along these lines - where costs
| are paid for by investments and entrance fees rather than
| rents?
| kiba wrote:
| Only 160 residents can live there, which only helps a small
| amount of people.
| brixon wrote:
| Since this is not a public service, then no rationing is not
| bad. In the US, a lot of the homeless shelter are faith based
| and each only have so many beds to go around each night.
|
| There are not more since someone has to put up the money for
| the investments. And entrance fees would not likely work for
| anything new and not novel. Only the government can spend
| more than it makes.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I don't think you would be permitted to have a faith-based
| test for entry into a homeless shelter in the US, though,
| even if the shelter were faith based. I'm not a lawyer but
| I've seen enough fair housing act noticed when buying,
| selling, and renting housing.
| merpnderp wrote:
| Interesting, but since no money is changing hands I
| wonder if there are exceptions. I mean I can see some
| people preferring people sleep on the streets than see a
| faith-based test allowed to exist, but surely those
| people's irrationality doesn't prevail?
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I mean, you could ask the same question for a race-based
| test, and come to the same basic conclusion: that it is
| "irrational" to prevent it.
|
| I think you have to leave look a little deeper to reach a
| correct conclusion. Namely: I don't think significantly
| more free housing would in fact be offered without these
| regulations. So it would not be rational to allow this
| type of discrimination. The regulation in essence
| provides an anchor "price" for free housing, while not
| distorting the "market" very much. This is a good type of
| regulation to have.
| nanis wrote:
| > Is rationing ... bad?
|
| Yes. When a good or service is always available to anyone who
| can pay the price, all one needs to do is find the money and
| one can get it.
|
| When prices are set artificially low, both current and long
| term go down which results in perpetual shortages. Since
| getting the thing now depends not just on being able to come
| up with the cash, but relies on the pen of a bureaucrat,
| corruption seeps in and becomes endemic.
|
| This charity is able to get it done by requiring adherence to
| a specific religion which serves both as a selection and an
| enforcement mechanism.
|
| If one is tempted to think of generalizing this, I would
| recommend reading about both Western socialists waxing poetic
| about USSR's "solutions" to housing shortages and the reality
| of housing in the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, city & urban
| planning programs as well as architecture schools tend to
| produce a lot of credentialed people who parrot the former.
| jorvi wrote:
| > Yes. When a good or service is always available to anyone
| who can pay the price, all one needs to do is find the
| money and one can get it.
|
| This sounds nice but breaks down because shelter is a human
| need, it is not a new iPhone.
|
| I am aware that the solution to housing crises is build
| build build, and that the more profit is in developing
| housing the more there is being built, but pretending a
| place to live is like any other common good is cold and
| wrong.
| luckylion wrote:
| > pretending a place to live is like any other common
| good is cold and wrong.
|
| Does it help if you pretend that it's not? Do you get
| more investments into housing, and in the end, more
| houses, if you consider housing different from other
| markets?
| jorvi wrote:
| I am not pretending anything, I am merely pointing out
| that shelter, like food an water, is a basic human right
| (although judging by HNs donwvotes, they'd be fine with
| starving and dehydrating people as long as someone is
| making a massive profit).
| luckylion wrote:
| I think many here disagree with you about it being a
| human right, because unlike the earlier human rights,
| it's not "leave people be" at its core, it's "you have to
| do X for people". If anything, it's a human entitlement,
| but that doesn't have the same ring to it, I suppose.
|
| And then there's the next part: how good and how much?
| What's the housing that everyone supposedly has a right
| to? 100sqft? 500? 1000? And of what quality, and where?
| Do they get to choose the location?
| guerrilla wrote:
| > If anything, it's a human entitlement, but that doesn't
| have the same ring to it, I suppose.
|
| This is nonsense you just made up. Positive and negative
| rights are both rights, as is common understood in
| English but especially as defined within political
| science and philosophy. [1]
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_ri
| ghts
| luckylion wrote:
| Yes, and positive rights in that context are
| entitlements. With a right to be housed, you're entitled
| to a house/apartment/shelter.
| iSnow wrote:
| But housing doesn't work like this at all.
|
| "all one needs to do is find the money" is the mechanism
| that keeps some people out of the housing market, or at
| least makes their lives pretty hard. Middle-class families
| can find the money, but the poor do not and usually cannot
| (for whatever reasons) raise their value on the job market
| enough.
|
| A case can be made for rationed housing at extremely low
| prices. If you let anyone in, you would get a cash-flow
| problem and distort the market, but not if you limit it to
| the poor.
| nanis wrote:
| > But housing doesn't work like this at all.
|
| The incentives and the price mechanism is independent of
| the desire of some people to think this or that
| good/service is "special".
| eesmith wrote:
| You presume infinite resources.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(Arizona) has a
| rationing system.
|
| > Due to the fragile nature of the formation and the large
| number of people wishing to visit it, a daily lottery
| system is used to dispense only ten next-day permits in
| person at the Kanab visitor center. Additionally, ten
| online permits for each date are available four months in
| advance of a planned trip.
|
| There will be a perpetual shortage.
|
| This is not a bad thing ... unless you don't care about
| preserving things for the future.
|
| Do you still think rationing is bad? Or is my example not a
| case of rationing?
|
| Bavaria is majority Catholic. "Demonstrate financial need"
| is likely a much stronger selection mechanism.
|
| You didn't answer my question about why, if there's a wait
| list for this place, and since it's proven to be
| economically sustainable, other housing isn't built along
| these lines.
|
| > corruption seeps in and becomes endemic
|
| After 500 years, is the Fuggerei endowment fund corrupt?
|
| Corruption can seep in whenever the person making the
| decision isn't the person making the profit. Even in a free
| market.
| sokoloff wrote:
| It's not obvious to me that this is economically self-
| sustaining, that is to say it could be recreated starting
| from scratch today (without the initial grant from the
| Fuggers).
| gruez wrote:
| >Bavaria is majority Catholic. "Demonstrate financial
| need" is likely a much stronger selection mechanism.
|
| According to wikipedia bavaria is only 49.6% catholic.
| I'm not sure how excluding more than half the population
| on the basis of religion can be justified.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria#Demographics
| eesmith wrote:
| Then my source is out of date. As your source points out,
| 10 years ago that was 56.4% -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
| index.php?title=Bavaria&oldid=4369...
|
| My point is that the requirement to demonstrate financial
| need is likely a significantly stricter criterion than
| the requirement to be Catholic, so the latter shouldn't
| be singled out.
| Moru wrote:
| German Catholic is pretty strong still. Church runs a lot
| of hospitals and kid/youth things, daycare and so on.
| They require Catholic employees, they frown upon non
| married couples and so on.
| nanis wrote:
| > corruption seeps in and becomes endemic
|
| After 500 years, is the Fuggerei endowment fund corrupt?
|
| I do not know about their internal workings. As I said,
| in this special case, verified adherence to the rules of
| a specific religion may help. However, history is filled
| with examples of catholic clergy dispensing with
| favorable judgements in exchange for things of value. How
| do you know if a more "deserving" person was not passed
| over for someone else who may be had a good connection or
| promised personal favors etc.
|
| Regardless, I was referring to the situation when someone
| tries to replicate something which seems to work in a 160
| person case at a grand scale.
| mattcwilson wrote:
| Whose definition of "deserving" is most applicable here,
| and why theirs?
|
| Who is suggesting any intent to replicate this at a grand
| scale?
| nanis wrote:
| I prefer not to have to prove that I am deserving
| according to someone's value system, just that I am able
| to pay the price.
| eesmith wrote:
| You implied the corruption was inevitable. Either the
| endowment fund is corrupt already, or your assertion
| about 'inevitable' is meaningless.
|
| History is filled with lots of examples of corruption.
| Including in free markets.
|
| You were referring to the existence of a years-long
| waiting list, as if it were a meaningful evidence they
| should raise rents in order to avoid the artificial
| scarcity you think is universally bad.
|
| Who do you think they should kick out, and why?
| edouard-harris wrote:
| > Is rationing ... bad?
|
| Economics 101 often fails to convey the crucial fact about
| rationing: under any rationing system that isn't a pure
| random lottery, the only effect of rationing a good is to
| _change the currency in which that good is priced_. [1]
|
| For example, I live in Canada. Our healthcare system is
| single-payer [2], which is isomorphic to saying that it is
| rationed. So it would not be accurate to say that your access
| to healthcare in Canada is priced in dollars. But it would be
| accurate to say that your access to healthcare in Canada is
| priced in your ability to navigate bureaucracy, the
| flexibility of your working hours (to snag last-minute
| appointments), and your family connections who are embedded
| in the healthcare system as administrators or physicians.
|
| Depending on your personal values, you might consider it good
| or bad that access to healthcare in Canada is priced in these
| units. What makes dollars unique is that if you inject more
| dollars into the free market for a good, then ceteris
| paribus, _you will cause more of that good to be produced_.
| Whereas if you injected more bureaucratic know-how into the
| Canadian patient population, you 'd merely cause more intense
| competition for the same fixed number of physician-hours.
|
| That is: by repricing a good in non-dollar units, you've
| removed a lot of the flexibility that would have allowed your
| system to _make more of the good if lots of people wanted
| it_. There are situations when this might make sense to do,
| and there are legitimate debates to be had around it. But
| this is the tradeoff you 're making when you ration.
|
| People often mistakenly think that if the price of a good is
| opaque, then the good must not _have_ a price. This is
| incorrect. What 's more, if you believe it, then you're
| almost certainly getting over-charged. And very
| unfortunately, this mistake tends to be most common among
| less sophisticated folks -- who are the very folks that
| rationing was intended to protect in the first place.
|
| [1] And unfortunately, real human-managed bureaucracies are
| not reliably pure random lotteries, even when they are
| supposed to _literally be_ pure random lotteries. See, e.g.,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Pennsylvania_Lottery_scan.
| ..
|
| [2] More accurately, big subsets of our healthcare system
| operates under single-payer. Many services like eye doctors,
| dentists, etc. are private.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| benlivengood wrote:
| > Economics 101 often fails to convey the crucial fact
| about rationing: under any rationing system that isn't a
| pure random lottery, the only effect of rationing a good is
| to change the currency in which that good is priced. [1]
|
| Isn't it often worse than that? Unless rationing can be
| perfectly enforced (e.g. require consumption of the entire
| resource under observation of enforcers, which is actually
| most tenable with housing by frequently checking to make
| sure only the authorized people are present) then secondary
| grey/black markets form when there is an opportunity for
| arbitrage.
| tehjoker wrote:
| So being able to get something after a wait is worse than
| not being able to access it at all by being priced out?
| That's a hot take.
|
| Just because something is "priced" in a different quantity
| doesn't mean that it isn't cheaper or higher quality
| overall. That requires a more sophisticated argument than a
| simple observation that there's still some cost.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| > the only effect of rationing a good is to change the
| currency in which that good is priced
|
| This just sounds like an instance of the fact that a
| sufficiently abstract system of reasoning can be always be
| forced to described any particular patch of the world.
| Though typically at the cost of considerable contortions of
| the terms that makes no sense in other bits of the world.
|
| For example, you may well say that "ability to navigate
| bureaucracy" is a currency. But it's hard to understand how
| you put that currency in a bank, in which sense this
| currency splits into perfectly equivalent units, or how it
| represents equivalent value at many different physical
| locations since the specific bureaucrats are tied a
| specific location.
|
| By the way, picking an _instance_ of cheating as some sort
| of general argument of why a _specific_ system is not to be
| trusted is just a straw man, since the problem of cheating
| is independent on the exchange mechanism. Alternatively,
| accept this argument: scammers on Amazon prove that free
| market mechanisms don 't reliably give a fair price.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| > you've removed a lot of the flexibility that would have
| allowed your system to make more of the good if lots of
| people wanted it
|
| Only if they were capable of paying for it as well. That is
| a big assumption for something as expensive as healthcare.
|
| I personally find it very comforting that (at least at in
| principle) both the rich and poor wait in the same line.
| gruez wrote:
| >I personally find it very comforting that (at least at
| in principle) both the rich and poor wait in the same
| line.
|
| That's rarely the case. For stuff like consumer goods
| (ie. getting the iphone on launch day, a few years ago)
| the rich person can buy it off a scalper, or pay someone
| to stand in life for them. For healthcare they can just
| fly to a private clinic.
| setr wrote:
| >pay someone to stand in life for them
|
| Recently I learned you can even do this for the DMV...
| Truly the only place where men are made equal is the
| porcelain throne.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| There's a lot of ways in which the cost of healthcare in
| US is inflated due to restrictions and monopolies. Don't
| form an opinion on the premise that healthcare is
| intractable expensive.
| nanis wrote:
| Also, keep in mind that the current U.S. health insurance
| system is a by-product of the government trying to
| control the price of labor.
| dbingham wrote:
| > What makes dollars unique is that if you inject more
| dollars into the free market for a good, then ceteris
| paribus, you will cause more of that good to be produced.
|
| Markets don't actually work this way in practice. That's
| the theory, the theory rarely actually pans out. We could
| look at US healthcare, which is an insane mess, but it's
| pretty easy to argue that it's not actually a market due to
| insurance and opaque pricing and all the same problems.
| We've kind of got the worst of all worlds over here. But
| dental and vision care, which are closer to real markets
| don't actually work any better. They're still expensive, in
| accessible, and pretty non-responsive to price signals.
|
| Instead, take something like food, where it's a commodity.
| That's a place where markets should be the cleanest and
| most responsive to price signals. We produce 1.6x the
| amount of food the world needs. And food is some thing
| where there's a literal cap on the ability of any
| individual to consume it. Our stomachs are only so big,
| there's literally only so much each of us can consume in a
| day. By market theory, prices for food should be almost
| negative and no one should be with out food given those
| facts. But that's not how it works out. As always, there
| are too many confounding factors and the profit motive
| causes rent seeking at every layer.
|
| By market theory, there should be over production of food,
| which should cause everyone to have food and food producers
| to drop out of food production until prices rise to
| equilibrium where everyone has food and the people
| producing food have a good living.
|
| Has that happened anywhere? No. Instead, you have
| corporations standing between producers and eaters finding
| ways to make food more expensive through value add and
| marketing. You have producers struggling to get by, buried
| under a mountain of debt, and often effictively in
| indentured servitude to the processors. And you have
| hundreds of millions of people food insecure, tens of
| millions even in a rich country like the US that massively
| overproduces food. Because markets in real life don't work
| according to the theory.
|
| And that's why we can't just approach economic problems
| with the idea that we can just throw more markets at them.
| And why we have to think about when systems like single
| payer, for all their faults, are better than what we'd end
| up with through markets.
|
| Trust me, if you'd ever had to deal with the American
| health care system, you would long for the Canadian one.
| gruez wrote:
| > We produce 1.6x the amount of food the world needs.
| [...] By market theory, prices for food should be almost
| negative
|
| Can I get a source for the 1.6x figure? I suspect it's
| 1.6x _on the field_ , but doesn't factor in losses in
| transport/processing. By the same logic, we generate
| 110%[1] the amount of electricity that the world demands
| (at the power plant, 10% is lost due to transmission
| losses), therefore electricity prices should be negative
| as well.
|
| [1] https://blog.se.com/energy-management-energy-
| efficiency/2013...
| nanis wrote:
| > Instead, take something like food, where it's a
| commodity. That's a place where markets should be the
| cleanest and most responsive to price signals.
|
| There are a whole lot of distortions on every side of the
| market for food which interfere with a properly
| functioning market. There are incredible subsidies paid
| to farmers to produce specific things (which then cause
| over-production in those items). There are tariffs to
| protect privileged farmers. There are actual import and
| sometimes export quotas. Then, rich countries dump the
| over-production as in-kind food aid to poor countries
| undermining poor farmers there.
|
| Case in point is Nebbia v. New York[1] where the supreme
| court affirmed state interference in free markets by
| setting a price floor on milk to protect a select few
| milk producers.
|
| Going back to my first comment. The mechanics are clear.
| An effective price ceiling leads to too few units being
| offered relative to the units demanded resulting in
| perpetual shortages and non-market mechanisms end up
| determining who gets the benefits of the existing units.
| Persistent price ceilings lead to chronic reduction in
| investment producing the thing.
|
| Similarly, effective price floors (minimum price of milk,
| minimum wage etc) lead to too many units being offered to
| the market leading to persistently wasted productive
| resources.
|
| Both reduce the total productive capacity of an economy.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/502
| dbingham wrote:
| But that's the point. There are always going to be
| distortions. And only some of those distortions come from
| the government. Perfect markets _don 't exist_ and _can
| 't exist_. They don't line up incentives as advertised,
| the incentive for the producer to take as much as
| possible from the consumer drives all kinds of insane and
| harmful unexpected behavior. And market competition
| doesn't keep that incentive in check as the theory holds,
| because all producers share the same incentive and their
| interests align. Government distortions are sometimes
| self serving as you've pointed out, but just as often
| they are attempts to counter act the distortions created
| by the markets themselves.
|
| Economic theory has never been predictive to any
| reasonable margin of error. And a theory that cannot
| predict outcomes is not a valid theory.
| nanis wrote:
| > Perfect markets don't exist and can't exist.
|
| Even diamonds are not perfect.
|
| Perfection is good to have in models to demonstrate
| limiting cases, but not necessary to know the difference
| between situations where prices are allowed adjust and
| where prices are not allowed to adjust.
|
| The "markets are not perfect" crowd loves to imagine the
| existence of a "perfect" and benevolent social planner
| who will always act according to their wishes. Let me
| know when you find one. (I know, "#realsocialism never
| been tried).
|
| > Economic theory has never been predictive to any
| reasonable margin of error. And a theory that cannot
| predict outcomes is not a valid theory.
|
| I find it ironic that you make this statement in the
| context of a clear cut demonstration of what happens when
| prices are not allowed to adjust.
|
| There are a zillion markets across the world where one
| does not need to depend on the benevolence of the
| proprietor to get what you want or the benevolence of the
| customer to earn a living. Those get conveniently
| ignored.
|
| If price controls worked so wonderfully, Uber, which was
| only an improvement on what was there before it and
| nothing close to "perfect", would not have become so
| popular. I would have loved for them to run a continuous
| double auction, but then nobody every gave me a billion
| dollars to burn.
|
| > distortions created by the markets
|
| By definition, distortions are created by interventions
| in markets.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| > People often mistakenly think that if the price of a good
| is opaque, then the good must not have a price. This is
| incorrect. What's more, if you believe it, then you're
| almost certainly getting over-charged. And very
| unfortunately, this mistake tends to be most common among
| less sophisticated folks -- who are the very folks that
| rationing was intended to protect in the first place.
|
| Note that this is one of the problems in the US too. Health
| care prices are pretty opaque, it definitely has a price -
| which you'll find out after you get something done, and I
| would argue people get overcharged - evidenced by the fact
| that insurance companies can come in and slash the bill to
| a fraction of what it was (literally saying "you aren't
| allowed to charge this much").
| [deleted]
| kiba wrote:
| Yeah. This is not really social housing.
|
| It does makes me wonder how low the price of social housing can
| go while still being sustainable either to be subsidized by the
| government or payable by tenants.
|
| Land use policies, that is transportation and housing makes up
| about 30% of the cost in the average American budget, which
| suggests living in America is pretty expensive.[1]
|
| 1. https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget
| hef19898 wrote:
| Well, it is considered the oldest social housing offering in
| the world.
| cies wrote:
| Came to the same conclusion that "catholics only housing"
| cannot be social housing...
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I wonder how strictly they check up on your mass
| attendance. I'm not sure the ethics of lying to pass an
| unethical religious-based test for housing, but it strikes
| me that there must be at least one resident that is not as
| dedicated to the church as most.
| cies wrote:
| Still not very social if its "catholics only". That
| they're checking on your church attendance makes it all
| feel very bigbrothery to me.
|
| Non the less cool they manage to keep prices down: much
| lower than actual social housing operated by govt.
| tsbischof wrote:
| It could be as simple as checking tax records: in
| Germany, tithing is incorporated directly into tax
| declarations and payroll systems.
| nanis wrote:
| > Social worker Doris Herzog is the first point of
| contact for most applicants. She checks church registers
| to ensure they're Catholic and interviews them on their
| living situation.
| zaarn wrote:
| Will point out that this housing is hardly sustainable, it's
| paid for from the remainders of Fugger's wealth (he is the
| richest man in the world, accounting for currency changes and
| inflation) as well as donations from the church (probably in
| order not to be dragged to court for late debt payments, the
| church borrowed a lot from Fugger).
| dbingham wrote:
| Those things happen in markets with price signals too.
| Rationing and persistent shortage are happening in housing
| markets around the world broadly.
|
| It's kind of a given that any social housing like this is going
| to have a limited number of rooms. And as a result, only so
| many people will be able to live there.
|
| That's not some clear proof of market theory. Because the other
| half of market theory - about how price signals drive behavior
| of rational actors - doesn't hold up.
| thebean11 wrote:
| Do you have an example where rationing is occurring without
| price controls? I don't have experience outside of the US,
| but in the two US markets with probably the biggest housing
| shortages (SF, NYC, maybe Austin nowadays?), if you give me
| 8k a month I'll find an apartment tomorrow.
| lakis wrote:
| Good luck going to Mount Athos
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos#Access Money is
| not an issue. But unless your a man, you can't get in,
| period. Oh, you mean you want to live there. No problem,
| just change your religion. "Residents on the peninsula must
| be men aged 18 and over who are members of the Eastern
| Orthodox Church and also either monks or workers"
| nanis wrote:
| > Good luck going to Mount Athos
|
| OK, so here we once again have a situation where the
| price mechanism is not allowed to operate. For a moment,
| I thought this was a private gated community in San
| Fransisco.
|
| > Mount Athos (/'aethas/; Greek: Athos, ['a.thos]) is a
| mountain and peninsula in northeastern Greece and an
| important centre of Eastern Orthodox monasticism. It is
| governed as an autonomous polity within the Hellenic
| Republic. Mount Athos is home to 20 monasteries under the
| direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch of
| Constantinople.
|
| Oh, another religious membership test.
|
| How is this at all pertinent to the functioning of the
| price mechanism? Especially when it is government
| enforced?
|
| > Although Mount Athos is legally part of the European
| Union like the rest of Greece, the Monastic State of the
| Holy Mountain and the Athonite institutions have a
| special jurisdiction which was reaffirmed during the
| admission of Greece to the European Community (precursor
| to the EU).[5] This empowers the Monastic State's
| authorities to regulate the free movement of people and
| goods in its territory; in particular, only males are
| allowed to enter.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos
| syshum wrote:
| It is also unfair to blame market prices for the situation
| in NYC and SF as largely the price increases and shortages
| are driven by insane zoning and other regulations that
| makes building, maintaining, and turning over housing near
| impossible.
|
| That is not market forces, that is government controls
| jka wrote:
| Are there any statistics on the number of units of livable
| accommodation in the world, per country?
| nanis wrote:
| Define "livable accommodation".
|
| That aside, in the U.S., there is
| https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs.html
| jka wrote:
| Thank you very much - I think that shows that (for the US):
|
| - in 2015 there were an estimated 118,290k housing units
|
| - in 2017 there were an estimated 121,560k housing units
|
| - in 2019 there were an estimated 124,135k housing units
|
| (note that the majority of these -- more than 70,000k in
| each case -- are single, detached houses)
|
| Those are quite useful starting factors - roughly one
| housing unit per three persons in the population, and
| roughly 5% growth in capacity over four years.
|
| The next few steps would be to match those against
| population and property price trends, check for
| correlations, and perhaps narrow and regionalize the data
| to look for any notable outliers.
|
| (not sure when I'll get to those, but it'll be a good
| learning experience I'm sure)
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| Ah, Mr. Fugger, richest man in the world, the Catholic Church
| borrowed so much from him (and fleeced their followers so much in
| order to pay him back) that Martin Luther got so mad and nailed
| his manifesto to a church door and created Protestantism:
|
| https://nypost.com/2015/07/26/meet-historys-richest-man-who-...
|
| I wonder if his name is the origin of the swearword...
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| What swear word?
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| "That Fugger kicked me out of the housing project because I
| missed my last 3 eucharists"
| zip1234 wrote:
| According to the wikipedia article, the last name was
| actually spelled "Fucker"
| [deleted]
| lioeters wrote:
| Indeed!
|
| > The founder of the family was Johann Fugger, a weaver
| at Graben, near the Swabian Free City of Augsburg. The
| last name was originally spelled "Fucker".
|
| > The first recorded reference to the family comes when
| Johann's son, also named Johann (or Hans), moves to
| Augsburg in 1367, with the local tax register laconically
| noting _Fucker advenit_ , "Fugger has arrived".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugger_family
| FabHK wrote:
| > Fucker advenit
|
| Strikes me as an excellent name for a Christian rock
| band.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| He looks like bezos
| bernardom wrote:
| The book The Richest Man Who Ever Lived is riveting. The guy
| bankrolled kings, wrote a collections letter to the Holy Roman
| Emperor, etc. etc.
| prox wrote:
| Who are the bankrollers of today? Do they still exist?
| jdavis703 wrote:
| They are nation-states and multinational corporations with
| market values that exceed the GDP of smaller countries.
| adventured wrote:
| > market values that exceed the GDP of smaller countries
|
| Revenue that exceeds the GDP of nations.
|
| Walmart = $566 billion. Good enough for #25 among
| nations, larger than Nigeria or Thailand, just below
| Belgium and Poland.
|
| Amazon = $443 billion. Equal to #30 among nations. Nearly
| identical to Israel or Norway, and ahead of the
| Philippines or Egypt.
|
| Berkshire Hathaway = $365 billion. Equal to #40 among
| nations. Comparable to Singapore or Vietnam, just below
| Denmark.
|
| Apple = $347 billion. Equal to #41 among nations. Larger
| than Pakistan, Finland, Chile and just below Bangladesh.
|
| CVS = $278 billion. Equal to #48 among nations.
| Comparable to Czechia and larger than Portugal, New
| Zealand.
|
| UnitedHeath = $270 billion. Equal to #49 among nations.
| Just below Romania or Colombia.
|
| Google = $220 billion. Equal to #52 among nations.
| Comparable to Greece or Peru.
|
| Microsoft = $168 billion. Equal to #56 among nations.
| Just below Hungary or Kazakhstan, ahead of Ukraine or
| Algeria.
| zaarn wrote:
| For comparison, Fugger's net worth today at the peak
| would have been 400 billion $. Not revenue, net worth.
|
| Also keep in mind that revenue is not market value nor is
| it wealth/net worth.
| lqet wrote:
| > At the time of his death in 1525, Fugger's personal wealth
| was equivalent to 2% of the GDP of Europe. [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Fugger
| morpheos137 wrote:
| St. Peter's Basillica wasn't cheap.
|
| What Luther was specifically mad about was selling indulgences
| (certificates of forgivness for certain sins) to pay off Church
| debt.
| coldcode wrote:
| Indulgences were not the big money maker for people at the
| top, it was selling benefices that made Popes and other
| church leaders rich, i.e. selling Church offices for huge
| sums (hey you want your nephew to be a Bishop or Cardinal,
| sending in X ducats). Why fleece poor people when you can
| fleece the rich, they have all the money.
| dmurray wrote:
| Well, yeah, but you wanted your nephew to be a bishop or a
| cardinal not just for the prestige, but because he could
| sell or rent lower positions in his own diocese, or collect
| indulgences himself. It's feudalism all the way down.
| throwaway14356 wrote:
| are those transferable assets? i want one to mix in with the
| framed diplomas
| belter wrote:
| "To be eligible to live in the village, applicants need to meet
| three basic criteria: they must demonstrate financial need,
| have lived in Augsburg for at least two years and be of
| Catholic faith."
|
| Is this legal? I mean the faith part...
| RuggedPineapple wrote:
| Absolutely. The German constitution mandates students be able
| to obtain religious education in public school as part of
| regular curriculum, prohibits the government from interfering
| in any religious organization and mandates that the
| government collect member tithes as part of tax collection
| for any religious group registered as a PLC at their request.
|
| The ruling party of Germany is expressly religious, the
| Christian Democratic Union. There's religious pluralism in
| Germany and all religions have the same benefits, but the
| idea of what those religions may do is not so intuitive from
| us in North America.
| belter wrote:
| But besides the money collection there are also the tax
| exemptions right? It looks lovely...
|
| "The foundation deed specified that the housing complex was
| to exist "in perpetuity" and to be "further developed." The
| philosophy behind it can be summarized as being to "provide
| assistance, not charity, to people in need so they can help
| themselves." There are a total of nine foundations
| established by the Fugger family in Augsburg that have been
| in continuous existence since the 16th century. In addition
| to the Fuggerei, there are medical facilities, an
| infirmary, and a foundation to contribute to the salvation
| of the Fugger family, among others. According to an
| inscription on a tablet displayed at the Fuggerei, the
| Fugger family established the foundation to "reimburse God
| the money that he has generously bestowed upon the family."
|
| "Paupers or beggars are not eligible. A person that has
| been accepted for residence is required to say three daily
| prayers for the Fugger family"
|
| https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2021/08/500-year-anniversary-of-
| th...
|
| Its going for a long time:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugger_family
|
| And many foundations: https://www.fugger.de/en/foundations
|
| I am sorry ...the business man in me...every time I see the
| word foundation I see only one thing. Only business vehicle
| where you are tax exempt... while at the same time still
| benefiting from the foundation assets.
|
| "Forget about the Gates Foundation. The world's biggest
| charity owns IKEA -- which is not only devoted to interior
| design."
|
| https://medium.com/@jurgeng/ikeas-tax-scheme-a-corporate-
| str...
|
| https://ikeafoundation.org/
| hnbad wrote:
| > all religions have the same benefits
|
| That is true in theory but not in practice. To be
| recognized you need to be organized as a _Korperschaft
| offentlichen Rechts_ which isn 't exactly trivial. In
| practice the Catholic church and the "Evangelical church of
| Germany" (a confederation of various mostly independent
| parishes, mostly Lutheran) are the two big ones and
| everything else barely passes as a rounding error (e.g.
| there seems to be only one Muslim organization and while
| they reflect a sect mostly originating in Turkey, they're
| hardly the largest Muslim sect in Germany).
|
| Also for example the two primary public broadcasting
| channels ARD and ZDF have a Catholic and Lutheran bias
| (although this mostly manifests in a handful of very short
| theological opinion pieces paid for by the respective
| churches and clergy of the two religious orientations being
| invited every time ethical concerns are discussed).
|
| Saying "all religions have the same benefit" is a lot like
| saying all people are equally forbidden from sleeping under
| bridges regardless of their income. It's not exactly an
| equal playing field and a lot of the influence of the
| churches comes down to not just the number of registered
| members but also feudal property rights and pre-existing
| contracts (e.g. the Catholic church is one of the few
| entities that legitimately "owns" land in Germany whereas
| normally legal subjects are only granted "ownership"
| conditionally).
|
| And let's not get into public sector institutions like
| hospitals and schools being operated by one of the two
| churches and personnel being subject to church labor laws
| while the majority of the operating costs (in some cases
| even 100%) are footed by the state.
|
| We only call it pluralism because Martin Luther was
| successful. Much like our so-called federalism (because
| Germany was still a lose collection of functionally mostly
| independent states until around the time of the American
| Civil War) it's really more of an accident of history that
| we later rebranded as something desirable.
| dnh44 wrote:
| Regarding the church tax, if you move to Germany you'll be
| ask what religion your are and unless you answer atheist
| you'll have to start paying a church tax and it appears to
| be quite a hassle to get out of it.
|
| https://www.settle-in-berlin.com/stop-paying-german-
| church-t...
| hef19898 wrote:
| You declare not being part of an officially recognised
| church, not being atheist. Muslims don't pay these taxes
| as these is no recognised Islam "church". Getting out is
| easy, depending on where you live. It took me about 10
| minutes, signing a paper at the Standesamt, and out I
| was. Got a nice letter from "my" community priest giving
| me a chance to rethink that while threating me with hell,
| pretty directly so.
| ant6n wrote:
| It's Corona, there's no Standesamt available (no joke).
| alex_young wrote:
| The same system exists in Switzerland. While living
| there, and after registering, a priest visited my home to
| investigate our nonbeliever status. My spouse
| inadvertently mentioned her Jewish ancestry, at which
| point the priest offered to send a Rabbi instead, before
| she could say that she wasn't then and had never been
| observant.
| Tomte wrote:
| > and it appears to be quite a hassle to get out of it.
|
| Five minutes at the local courthouse, 20 Euros or so, and
| it's effective next month.
|
| Of course, during Corona it can be more difficult to get
| an appointment, and the fee can vary from state to state,
| but all in all it's easy to get out.
| belter wrote:
| "Church tax in Germany is a 8-9% surcharge on top of your
| income tax."
|
| That is a stunning amount. I wonder how many Berlin based
| Startup Developers are having a second look at the salary
| receipt right now...
| harimau777 wrote:
| At least in Christianity, 10% is the traditional donation
| to the Church. So that doesn't necessarily sound out of
| line. On the other hand, some people split the 10%
| between the Church and secular charities which wouldn't
| be possible in this case.
| leipert wrote:
| Slight clarification here, it is way less than 8-9% of
| your gross salary. I had a look when I was a church
| member, and it was 2% of my gross salary. It was indeed
| 8% of the amount of my income tax.
|
| I think the way it is calculated (depending on the
| federal state your in): Gross salary -> income tax -> 8
| to 9% of the income tax = church tax.
| belter wrote:
| I am sorry but I have a follow up question maybe you are
| able to elaborate as you mentioned: "There's religious
| pluralism in Germany"
|
| Scientology has an IRS tax exemption in the US as another
| religion, but it seems in Germany the state has made their
| life quite difficult. Does German law provides for a clear
| specification of how to define a religion?
| fy20 wrote:
| Side note, Jedi is the fourth largest religion in the UK.
| I wonder if Disney have considered registering it as an
| official religion to lower their tax bill there.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon
| joecool1029 wrote:
| >Scientology has an IRS tax exemption in the US as
| another religion, but it seems in Germany the state has
| made their life quite difficult.
|
| Scientology's founder has been quoted as saying: "You
| don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to
| get rich, you start a religion." German courts have
| argued that because of this (and the organization's
| behavior after he died) that it's actually a for-profit
| business organization masquerading as a religion.
|
| EDIT: I probably should add that the US is rather extreme
| amongst nations worldwide in that it does tend to
| recognize personal conviction rather than only shared
| dogma/tradition as a form of 'religion'. It's unlikely
| but I could see the organization losing tax-exempt
| status. Even if this happened, the individuals couldn't
| be prohibited from practicing what they believe is a
| religion.
| wahern wrote:
| The US never affirmatively recognized Scientology as a
| legitimate religious organization. Rather, Scientology
| fought a prolonged, dirty war with the IRS and came out
| the victor when the IRS decided to settle. Because of
| anti-tax sentiment that daemonizes the IRS, the IRS
| doesn't have the stomach for prolonged battles that play
| out in the media. The public is too credulous when the
| defendant invariably plays the Samson & Goliath card.
| (Trump has also successfully used this technique. I once
| had a law professor who worked on an IRS case against
| Trump, and he had some interesting stories--not to
| mention strong opinions--regarding Trump's business
| practices. Actually, anyone of means caught in the IRS'
| cross-hairs will use this technique. But you have to be
| particularly bellicose, as in the Scientology and Trump
| cases, to flagrantly violate tax laws with the intention
| of taking the IRS to the mat.)
|
| It's also worth pointing out that, unlike some other
| countries, the US doesn't really have a formal system for
| recognizing religious organizations. AFAIU, the closest
| thing we have is the IRS adjudicating in the first
| instance Federal tax exemption status. Otherwise, as a
| general matter, a religion is as a religion does, and
| it's usually up to agencies, municipalities, and
| ultimately courts to decide on a dispute-by-dispute basis
| whether an organization, group, or person is owed the
| benefit of some particular religious exception in law.
| ordinaryradical wrote:
| They defined Scientology as a pyramid scheme (rightly)
| because of its "pay for revelation" business model.
|
| Probably not the most meaningful example as Scientology
| had to be pretty egregious to get disqualified.
| belter wrote:
| You will not find an advocate of Scientology in me :-))
| But you will find an advocate of equal treatment under
| the law and the rule of law.
|
| Apparently members have stronger restrictions than those
| applied to persons who express extreme right views:
|
| "Scientologists in Germany face specific political and
| economic restrictions. They are barred from membership in
| some major political parties, and businesses and other
| employers use so-called "sect filters" to expose a
| prospective business partner's or employee's association
| with the organization."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany
|
| I am just trying to check who are the committees who
| define what is an acceptable religion, how and under what
| legal framework.
| weswpg wrote:
| in your quote, it says that private businesses and
| political parties are making these decisions. that's
| likely done as part of their regular screening processes.
| belter wrote:
| So...If a business would decide to screen a candidate for
| the their Muslim or Jewish faith that would be what?
| belter wrote:
| As I said, not defending Scientology here at all, but
| from the wikipedia article found this case interesting:
|
| "In 2019, the Munich Labor court sided with the director
| of personnel of Haus der Kunst, a well-known artistic
| museum. He had been removed from his position after
| working for 22 years because it was discovered that he
| was a Scientologist. The case was settled and the
| director of personnel was paid 110,000 euro as severance
| and received a full pension. Many Germany courts also
| ruled the legitimacy of Scientology as a religion. In
| 2019, Ahmed Shaheed and Fernand de Varennes who were UN
| Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion and on
| minority issues wrote to Germany that, "discriminating
| against those who profess a certain belief is illegal
| under international human rights law, irrespective of
| whether the belief is religious or merely philosophical
| or cultural."
| klyrs wrote:
| That sounds pretty fair to me. It's one thing to punish
| an individual for having a belief; it's another to give
| an organization a tax break for a Ponzi scheme based on
| that same belief.
| Tomte wrote:
| In the case of political parties: they decide themselves.
| The large parties all have lists of clubs and informal
| organizations where membership is incompatible with party
| membership.
|
| (No major party allows membership in another party,
| except european sister parties in other countries, but
| it's possible, and some smaller parties allow it)
| gruez wrote:
| > They defined Scientology as a pyramid scheme (rightly)
| because of its "pay for revelation" business model.
|
| but "pay for indulgences" is fine?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The direct sale of indulgences has been prohibited by the
| Catholic church since 1567. I don't think it's very
| relevant here.
| cat199 wrote:
| > the idea of what those religions may do is not so
| intuitive from us in North America
|
| .. pretty sure you can set up religious sponsored/focused
| housing in NA as well
| cycomanic wrote:
| Despite (or maybe because? ) of all of this religion plays
| a much smaller role both in everyday life as well as
| politics compared to the US.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| It's exactly because of it. This cooperative system gives
| the state significant control over the church, which was
| the original reason for this sort of semi-public funding.
| German priests are trained in public universities and the
| state has influence on the curriculum. Them most extreme
| form of religions you will always find outside of the
| system.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| It has been argued that the complete implosion of
| Christianity in the Netherlands was due to the creation of
| a welfare state.
|
| The Church was replaced by an irreligious state and that
| was it.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Why not? You can do that in the US too.
| dahart wrote:
| > I wonder if his name is the origin of the swearword...
|
| Interesting thought, but I don't think so. The F word predates
| Mr Fugger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck#Early_usage
| lqet wrote:
| Wiktionary lists as an interesting possible origin of the
| German equivalent "ficken" the sound it makes when two things
| rub against each other ("fffppp, fffppp, fffppp"). [0]
|
| [0] https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/ficken
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > I wonder if his name is the origin of the swearword...
|
| Maybe it was his mother.
| giardini wrote:
| "Mother Fugger'?
|
| How canst thous speak thus?
| coldcode wrote:
| Luther did not first nail his thesis to the door, he mailed
| them first, and had no intention of starting anything. Nailing
| things to a church door was common practice so that others
| could read things (no newspapers). Also Luther was only one of
| thousands of priests, bishops and monks who complained the
| Popes at the time were ignoring the faith and the people (which
| they were). He didn't invent Protestantism, he's just more
| famous than the others.
| javert wrote:
| Complaining to the Pope is not equivalent to taking the
| further enormous leap of breaking away from the Catholic
| Church.
|
| I don't know the history and would love for someone to fill
| me in, but I'm just not convinced that you are right to
| downplay Luther's role.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Luck is a key component in success.
|
| That doesn't mean success, or those who succeed, aren't
| successful. Or don't serve as icons for the movements or
| initiatives they are known for.
|
| There are many flaws with the Great Man theory of history.
| But reflexive rubbishing of it serves little use either.
|
| Better is to have an understanding of what factors
| contributed to a breakthrough. And if that is chance, luck,
| timing, or a coincidental confluence of factors including
| emergent technologies, then yes, give those credit.
|
| Real history is complex. It doesn't fit on postcards. Any
| less-than-comprehensive account is a map, not the territory.
|
| Maps remain useful.
| AlanSE wrote:
| I just finished reading this book, and the point I'm making
| comes almost directly from that.
|
| https://www.twelvebooks.com/titles/patrick-wyman/the-
| verge/9...
|
| Luther grew up in a mining community, where people where
| crass and confrontational. He had a frank, direct, and
| powerful rhetorical style that was forged in that
| environment. While he had several career options, a lightning
| strike made him get superstitious and become a monk. He was
| good at it. Take these 2 things - book smarts and an
| argumentative edge, and now a new twist enters the story...
|
| The printing press!
|
| The printers were in it to make money. His impact on history
| wasn't nailing a thing to a church door. The guy ran circles
| around the Church defenders because he replied quick,
| effectively, and he was the darling of the printers who
| controlled the medium.
|
| It's not just about having the best argument, it's about
| fitting the format of the medium. Luther would deliver
| retorts in the space and time frame that the printers wanted.
| You can easily imagine how this would drown out the defenders
| of the Church (especially since it's salacious) and impact
| public opinion.
|
| But that phase only lasted so-many years. Before long, the
| situation got out of his control, and that's kind of when you
| might say Protestantism started.
| krsdcbl wrote:
| today you could very well say he was a media-savvy
| influencer
| 1123581321 wrote:
| That explanation is fun, and not exactly wrong, but there
| were many factors brewing, and attempts at just about every
| part of what we call the Reformation had been attempted on
| some level in the hundred years preceding except perhaps
| the allied states' standard against the HRE. Most acute
| factors were probably the combination of the financial
| crisis, simony, absent bishops, Medici cultural and
| political influence over Rome, peasant revolts and prior
| attempts at schism or reformation, discontent between
| German princes and HRE, increasing prevalence and
| affordability of printing which promulgated new
| understandings of Aristotle and Augustine in addition to
| enabling more widespread publication of dissent. It's a
| rich topic, certainly worth reading extensively about; I'll
| be sure to check out the book you linked.
| Archelaos wrote:
| > and now a new twist enters the story...
|
| > The printing press!
|
| Not quite so new. At the time Luther published his 95
| Theses in 1517 the printing press with movable types has
| been around pretty much as long as the computer has been
| around for us in 2021: for three quarters of a century.
| est31 wrote:
| And we are _still_ not done computerizing society.
| h0nd wrote:
| 1EUR to live there for a year. 6.5EUR to visit once.
|
| What is going on there?
| martin_a wrote:
| The Fuggerei is really nice to visit and walk around. There's
| also a little museum house so you can have a look inside one of
| the rather small houses and a permanent exhibit in the old
| bunker of the Fuggerei.
|
| Keeping it up and running is cross-financed by the entry fees.
|
| Also the 1 Euro is not the whole truth. Residents will have to
| pay so called "Nebenkosten" (auxillary costs) for electricity
| etc. like with any other flat.
|
| Compared to Augsburgs rent levels it's still very cheap to live
| but I'd prefer not to do so.
|
| Source: Lived down the street for a few years.
| ginko wrote:
| What's with all the completely unrelated keywords in the article
| link?
| Tomte wrote:
| My guess: the poster did a copy&paste mistake (the URL up to
| the last / is valid and shows the Afghanistan article), but the
| CMS used by CBC only looks at the last part, so it's still
| successful.
| Bootvis wrote:
| It's just how the site works, not a mistake by OP. If you go
| to the Afghanistan article and click to the link to the
| article you'll get the link that was posted to HN.
|
| I'm not sure why the previous page is tracked like this but I
| guess they have their reasons.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-01 10:03 UTC)