Unfortunately the established construction companies have found themselves in a neat position to undercut new companies, and yet refuse to actually yield and lower the price unilaterally. A lot of them share board members with leading members of the raw materials producing companies, and fix prices. It’s overlooked because it’s good business practice for the public to overlook this. It’s not prosecuted because that would stymie building progress.
Or, you know, not. Because if the prices get higher, they get richer for doing nothing at all.
Our landlords association recently won a battle in court to lower the legal minimum bedroom size to 8 by 5 feet, because you can fit a single bed in that. Our landlords actively fight any and all building codes. Maybe this is another fundamental difference between our sides of the Pond.
That’s simplified massively. It’s council housing to the extent that the tenants are funded by the social housing scheme, but the property was privately owned. They applied for a tax omission grant to install the fascias claiming that they were for insulation, whereas everyone knows it was to hide the brutalist architecture from the eyes of the sensitive folks living in the more expensive estates in the borough. Similar things have happened all over the UK to buildings deemed “ugly” … a good example would be a school in Morpeth.
Which also burned down.
Marriage itself is a modern capitalist ideal. A legal script that binds two people together? Shares their debt if they’re poor or prevents their money being taken in tax if they’re rich? Perfect! We’re not married, and have no desire to be. We’re happy with the legal protections of a shared household, which is what is actually important. Being recognised as a family unit, not a unit of legal script.
China. Russia. Like literally everyone who intervened by supporting the Cambodian dictator.
Every nation state that refused to help. Oh, including my own. And yours. Every humanitarian disaster is avoidable.
No, but this is an interesting case. This proves that the Dictatorial Communist structure is always doomed to fail because it is stuck in a 1930s mentality of “people can survive off of bread, rice and potatoes and don’t need luxuries” whereas we all know this is utter bollocks. It also proves both our points
The Left is desperately trying to make it so. They’re diabolical.
Oh of course not, I didn’t mean to imply that! I’m just saying that’s what happens here. It’s revolting.
In response to your closing paragraph, I’m sorry but all I see there is the propaganda of Cold War America, which is perfectly understandable and nothing to be even ashamed of. A bad education isn’t the fault of the student, it’s the fault of the teacher. How Socialism, or rather Social Democracy, actually works in practice is that you have set restrictions that put the benefit of people ahead of the benefit of companies. A Social Democracy in Britain right now would focus on housing, education, health and employment; but not in a corporate manner:
A Socialist approach to housing right now would result in the building of more ‘small family’ houses; one or two bedroom flats and houses. Will this result in more tower blocks? Certainly, but with correct minimum restrictions on room sizes, fire safety, air quality, water recycling, and energy efficiency a tower block can be a penthouse.
A Socialist approach to education right now would result in making education free to use; you want to learn something you go learn it. It would also stop the ruination of Senior School which, as money tightened, started dropping subjects like art, mechanics, and foreign language because they couldn’t afford materials or qualified engineers or even just bilingual teachers. Universities would need massive overhauls, since during the last decade as tuition fees rose from £1,000 to £9,000 per term all they did was put more students into the same small rooms. No extra staff, because it’s expensive.
A Socialist approach to health would be to actually fucking fund health. We have amazing hospitals in the UK, and most of them are either closed or partially closed due to funding cuts. Shortly Bridge Hospital has a 400-bed ward that has been closed since 2007 because they didn’t want to pay cleaners to keep the hospital clean; Hexham General Hospital used to be an all-in-one hospital that could do anything; when it was rebuilt it lost the maternity ward, the emergency ward, the long term care ward, the nurse school, and pharmacy. Yes, the current hospital has no pharmacy. I just… I can’t.
A Socialist approach to employment is something that terrifies a lot of influential rich people. Universal Basic Income¹ would change the workforce forever. It would make jobs more competitive, while at the same time obliterating the bottleneck of having people forced into jobs they hate because they need the money. Automation, as Henry Ford discovered, makes a lot of things really fast and with few workers. This is a problem in a capitalist society because what do you do with the unemployed workers? This is not a problem with UBI. People can choose to do a job that they enjoy, for as many or few hours as they want. Want to be a doctor? Go and see if you’re good enough at free university, and then go and do it. Want to be a miner? Sure, go get that engineering degree for free and go do it.
A lot of what Americans fear about Socialism is made up, and a vast, vast majority of the things that Social Democracy could bring to the USA are things that the overwhelming majority of people would be both happier and richer for having.
¹ Universal Basic Income is a tax-funded structure by which everyone receives a payment per month from government which ensures that they have the bare minimum amount of income to feed, shelter, clothe, heat, power and transport their households. This would be household dependent, so a household of five would get a larger UBI credit than a household of three. Notice household not family, so as to not end up with a bunch of students living together making more money than a family with the same number of people. UBI also means the abolition of minimum wage, as it already provides that same minimum safety net. While it would also rely on you being a tax-paying citizen to receive it, it should probably be pointed out that in Britain at least, the poorest create way, way more money in taxes proportionately than the rich; if you’re poor, your priorities are food, fuel, and shelter. Food is taxed at 20%, fuel between 20 and 80%, and shelter is taxed by Council Rates which where I am are in the region of £110/mo, or approximately 14% of my income after income tax.
I’m just happy I don’t rent anymore.