Comments by "Neodym" (@neodym5809) on "Berlin's Plan to Seize Homes from Landlords: Nationalising Property - TLDR News" video.

  1. They are currently to busy looking for fuel.
    146
  2. High prices are the result of high demand and low supply. Instead of wasting money with nationalization, which will not build a single additional flat, Berlin and other cities should invest the money in building new properties.
    12
  3. And in Switzerland, binding referendums are ruled to be illegal if one side lied.
    10
  4. I argue that the money by the Berlin government would be better spend building new flats than to buy existing ones. Increase supply until it meets demand and prices will go down.
    10
  5. No. Compensation at market value is literally the opposite of communism.
    6
  6. No. What you describe is dictatorship of the masses. Democracy is the rule of law.
    6
  7. To the city of Berlin. So the state.
    4
  8.  @kerrykilian9127  Berlin has massive areas that can be developed (Tempelhof). But the citizens want both free areas and low rents. Have their cake and eat it.
    4
  9.  @robertb6889  Of course. But the plan would be to compensate them at market value.
    3
  10.  @whaahh  No. Why would the city council build luxury homes? If they build the apartments themself and keep them with affordable rent, it would decrease prices. and its 30 BILLION.
    3
  11.  @pedanticchicken2117  So USA is a socialist country because the government can control everything if they want to?
    3
  12.  @diogocarvalho2934  No. Markets have to be regulated by the government, and when its about basic needs (housing, infrastructure, medical care, education...), the government can be a player itself. This is required to ensure social peace.
    2
  13. Switzerland even does it with binding referendums.
    2
  14. True.
    2
  15. Because of the constitution. I give you a simple example: If the majority of people decide to take away all property of people of a certain religion, this may be the will of the people, but it leads down a rather grim route.
    2
  16.  @boarfaceswinejaw4516  No. The German constitution has a part that can not be changed, ever. It contains that nobody is allowed to be discriminated against because of religion. So even if 90% of the people voted for this, it would be still illegal under the constitution and cant be implemented.
    2
  17.  @HeadsFullOfEyeballs  German constitution says no.
    2
  18.  @nnnik3595  Of course they can. 30 billion is more than enough for the city of Berlin to build new flats and rent them out cheap.
    2
  19. It is also illegal in Germany.
    2
  20. @P Pierre Diamonds are of artificial low supply, but still of low supply. That is what a monopoly does.
    1
  21. @P Pierre Nobody is in monopolistic control of the Berlin housing market. The biggest owner of properties there is actually the city of Berlin with 300k. Deutsche Wohne has 110k. So I really dont get what your example has to do with the Berlin housing market.
    1
  22.  @faultier1158  State is actually the biggest owner of flats in Berlin, 300k, much more than private deutsche Wohnen with 110k flats.
    1
  23.  @ggoddkkiller1342  owning 5% of Berlins flats is not a monopoly, not even close.
    1
  24.  @ChristianIce  Less than 20% of a local market in one segment ok?
    1
  25.  @ChristianIce  No, not 20% of the city. Less than 20% in one market segment (2 room flats for rent). Deutsche Wohnen owns 110k flats in Berlin. The city has a total 2 million flats, so they own 5%.
    1
  26.  @Maric18  the biggest owner of flats it Berlin is the city. 300k flats in public ownership. The biggest private operator is Deutsche Wohnen (110k, 5% market share). Most flats in Berlin are either owned by individuals owning just a couple of flats. Artificial price increases by artificial decrease of supply can therefor no be the reason, as no operator as a high enough market share to force this.
    1
  27. Is it in the public interest of the whole population of Berlin that the city spends 30 billion and therefor has no more money to spend on infrastructure, education or new flats, so 200k flats have cheaper rent?
    1
  28.  @him_That_is_me  To your information: the city of Berlin owns 300k flats. Deutsche Wohnen, the biggest company, owns 110k flats in Berlin. The way German cities work is that the cities own the flat themselfs and rent them out.
    1
  29.  @whaahh  I am talking about the city of Berlin, the GOVERNMENT, building social housing at Tempelhof. They own the property, they can build whatever they want there, with no regards to profit.
    1
  30.  @XMysticHerox  Lawyers tell you what the person who pays them want to hear. The only thing that matters are court rulings, and they are rather one way: Market prices.
    1
  31.  @wakey87  Urbanization is the problem. People moving from the countryside to cities. You get a giant house in the countryside with acres of land, or a small flat in Munich.
    1
  32.  @idcgaming518  What did the media report? The government saying not to panic. So go to the cause of the panic, dont shoot the messenger.
    1
  33.  @carlosandleon  Never go to Munich then. Prices are 50% higher on average than in Berlin.
    1
  34.  @nnnik3595  what about Tempelhof?
    1
  35. Is less than 20% in one market segment in Berlin a huge amount?
    1
  36.  @ubrot7995  And Bundesrat. Both chambers need to agree.
    1
  37. No its not. Paying market value is the opposite of socialism
    1
  38.  @kerrykilian9127  If the city of Berlin owns Tempelhof and builds flats there, why would they build expensive flats?
    1
  39.  @JC-to5by  What are talking about? Berlin would have to pay market prices for the flats.
    1
  40.  @JC-to5by  Well, they lied.
    1
  41.  @XMysticHerox  Berlin is close to being broke. Nationalizing costs 30 billion, and the plan would be to decrease rent. Furthermore, maintenance is expensive, too. Rents would not be enough to finance.
    1