Vote for the state to reintroduce the building subsidy
https://agera.skiftet.org/campaigns/aterinfor-byggstodet
A state construction grant to build cheap, good and beautiful housing as well as housing allowances and regulations that lower the average rent to 25% of low-income earners' wages can have positive effects on the economy. These measures can potentially reduce inflation, increase employment, promote societal output and reduce economic disparities. By increasing access to affordable housing, more people can afford to live and work in society. It can also reduce the mountain of private debt and contribute to a more stable economy. By stimulating housing construction and regulating the rental market, society can achieve a boom instead of a recession.
The high rents and the lack of rental properties as well as cheap rental properties lead more people to take out loans. The lack of cheap rental properties is a cornerstone of the austerity policy. Without the high housing costs, not enough people would have taken out enough loans to finance neoliberalism and austerity policies. Neoliberalism makes the unsustainable consumption of the rich possible and this is a large part of the environmental threat.
The importance of government deficits
Government deficits are important for enabling investments in socially useful areas such as healthcare, railways and climate change. By creating money in the state budget for state construction aid and redistributing resources, the state can contribute to economic growth and reduce the risk of financial crises. Unilateral reliance on banks can lead to recurring financial crises and widen the gap between rich and ordinary people. Government deficits and an active fiscal policy are considered more effective in managing the economy and fighting inflation than interest rates.
Banks play an important role in the economy of society, but relying on them unilaterally can be problematic. At the same time, neoliberalism's introduction of restrictions on government deficits has led to society's real needs being left behind. Society needs a more balanced economic strategy and why we need bigger government deficits.
Banks' creation of money and its impact on society
When you take a loan from a bank, the bank creates the money at that moment. When you then repay the loan, the money ceases to exist. The creation of money by the banks is an important part of the economy, but it also means that the value of the money is linked to a part of your future work as a debt to the bank. When you pay off the loan, the money loses its value.
The state's ability to create money and redistribute resources
In addition to the banks' role, the state can also create money in the budget and redistribute society's resources through the tax system. By running a deficit (the term for when the government creates money), the government can create money and use it to finance society's needs. The state could reintroduce a state building grant. This gives the state the opportunity to influence the economy and redistribute resources to promote, for example, healthcare, railways and climate change.
Understanding inflation and the need for productivity
Inflation does not primarily depend on money production but on whether productivity is too low in relation to the money supply. Reducing the money supply only makes production more difficult and can increase inflation. Instead, we should invest in increasing productivity in a socially and ecologically sustainable way to fight inflation. Therefore, it is important that the government does not reduce the money supply through austerity policies, which can inhibit production and increase inflation.
The influence of neoliberalism and the need for larger government deficits
Neoliberalism has dominated the economy and introduced restrictions on government deficits. This has led to society's real needs, such as research, healthcare and climate change, having to take a back seat. By voting for larger government deficits, we can restore the balance and prioritize socially beneficial investments.
Vote for the state to reintroduce the building subsidy
https://agera.skiftet.org/campaigns/aterinfor-byggstodet
I support this proposal.
Then follow the link
https://agera.skiftet.org/campaigns/aterinfor-byggstodet
A really excellent suggestion. Common welfare started arguing for it many years ago. See http://gemensamvalfard.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/bygg-bort-bostadsbristen-version2.pdf
I just want to warn that if you use the same methods of housing construction as you do now, we risk new million program areas, areas where no one wants to live and which therefore only the poorest end up. We also deal with this in scripture.
We need to build mixed housing according to architectural standards of beauty whose highest purpose is not to provoke what most people appreciate.
So true! But it's not enough. The urban planning paradigm we have followed since about 1930 is destructive in itself. It means that the authorities must anticipate every single detail, which of course is expensive. The consequence is that no municipality dares to have foresight, because it is conceivable that what has been invested large sums in planning will not come to pass.
The 1800th century urban planning paradigm was more realistic: the municipality divides the city into lots and commons, and ensures that there is infrastructure. Then the plot owners can do what they want as long as they don't break any rules. Cheap and good, Stockholm could easily double its population between 1880 and 1910 that way, and we enjoy what was built today.
But that is a detailed planning issue, not a funding issue. Your detailed planning aspect does not contradict the need for government funding if low- and middle-income earners are to be able to afford and have the opportunity to live.
Sure. But if something goes wrong, it won't help to throw a lot of money at it, it will go wrong anyway.