Stormblood said:Dahaarkan said:HP. Hoodedcobra666 said:The old system was based on old technologies, abilities, knowledge and understanding. The foundational racial understanding and natural understanding would be carried to the next system, which will be more able to allow other things. It's like updating system software.
The system of the NS in Germany was 1920's. Production, machinery, science, everything was at the level that it was before. These things proceed and advance. The latest advancements produce also changes in the system.
For example, advanced robotics or more advanced agriculture, would affect also the ideas in regards to working, ownership etc. The idea of deflationary currency which was instated by Bitcoin, would affect the idea of how workers should be paid and so on.
Advancements will always affect us and we go layer by layer. I don't think Germany would have had the face it was forced to engage in during the War in order to defend itself after winning. That was a temporary shifting of affairs in order to defend one's self from extinction and stop the enemy.
The idea in NS Germany was that every person should own land and a house, and not be forced to have rents and landlords. At least this was the ideal goal.
It couldn't really be implemented fully back then either, but instead of today where 80% of people live on rent, the inverse was desired, to have around 80% of people NOT living on rent or in debt. These people later save and store money and so on, and their productivity is higher because they are free. With this, a Nation becomes richer and people get attached to the place of their residence too.
The idea here was that people should have self sufficiency, and this was related also to family life. There were hardly big tractors to do major lifting at this time, therefore, farming and family were two major constituents for state survival.
It's the core ideals that need to be understood from the NS not people hoping for a system to be stuck on that one as if we live in the 1920's. We no longer do. We are 100 years later. And in 200 years from now, things will be even more different. People may literally be living on parallel dimensions if the enemy allows us to advance technologically and spiritually. Then everything will progressively change from the rules we have now.
Landlords and rents have a bad reputation because obviously, many landlords are abusive and seek to exploit desperate people. But I believe providing housing for rent is an important service to the people, especially workers.
Having a home is well and good but people move. And homes do not. If you get a great opportunity for a job you really want to try, or have the chance to pursue a project or business you've always wanted, but such opportunities are far far away from your home, are you really going to sell it and buy a completely new home in this new location?
No, you are going to rent a place because it's far easier and cheaper for the short term projects or job contracts. So you're always going to need rental properties. The thing is it needs to be affordable and fair, this is not always the fault of the landlord, mind you. The price of rent will be proportional to the mortgage payments the landlord (if they are in debt) must pay to the bank, and they must get a reasonable return on their investment.
This is why the state providing reasonable loans would solve this. Landlords could easily make affordable and cheap housing while still getting a return on their investment and profiting. Everybody wins.
One should not need a loan/mortgage to buy a house. That line of thought, in my opinion, is still aligned to destructive capitalistic 'growth' (I'd say decay) of the housing market in comparison to wages. As such, prices should be cut by at least 90-95% and money should be forcefully seized from banks to repay any existing mortgages. From banks and anyone who speculated too much on a necessity of life.
Funny you state 90-95% price cut. With a video from the late Dr. William Pierce where he mentioned the 24,000,000 dollar or current few years ago inflated price of 443,000,000 dollar or nearly 20 times the inflation on Jacob Schiffs "contribution" to rabbi kabalist Lenin. Another example in Gentile World would have been Nikolai Tesla's 25,000,000 dollar benefit from the Gentile Bankers killed during the Titanic, he would have a fat half-a billion dollar inflated amount to current times. I believe our financial inflation system is overinflated by 20 to 30 times it's value. For example an LWRCI M6 Six8 6.8x43mm Carbine is sold for between 4800-5000 dollars in current times AND probably gonna rise as the artificial shortages occur.
Well funny enough if you remove 20 to 30 times it's inflation, it's worth about 160-166.7-240-250 so about this range 4800-5000 30-20 times less. So in essence this Assault Rifle would either be accepted as is or remodulated to reflect a better price and probably be sold for 250-300 dollars. Meanwhile say an M4 Carbine 5.56x45mm it would sell at about Germany's Sturmgewher 45 price about 23-35 dollars. Remodulated or wanting slightly more money maybe 50-60-75 or so.
So the main money inflation is out 20-30 and after that prices should be remodulated. Because it's one thing to drop the price by eliminating inflation it's another for companies or people or business to go out of business.
So for example the market in my neck of the woods states the average price is around 220,000 the cheapest house near is going for about 160,000 and the most expensive was so overprice it went out for like 812,000. Most houses around us are around 200-300. Some are gonna ask if I live in a McMansion or area with said McMansions. And the answer is nope, this house was built decades ago when the city was beginning to modernize.
The house really is worth less than 40 thousand or even less maybe something like 35,000. A much more manageable amount where many would either buy it through a loan(avoid) or simply the new leasing policy that came about like 10-15 years ago in popularity. Rent to own. You pay rent to own the building and at any time if you need to move you can cancel your payments leave and you basically rented. I can understand rent to own as a dangerous policy in the wrong hands or it could be a good policy in the right hands. You pay rent to own the property at some point.
The only other issue with pricing of a home is the fact people beatify or flip homes and then how much should a nice shanty be worth? In other words if I had my house bought payed 37,500. I put in 3,000 dollars to so now 40,500, to beatify and fix the place new doors, door handles, decorations, niceties etc.etc.. How much does that improve the value?
For example if I posses a home of 25,750 dollars if I invest in my home one of the most costly things a person can purchase in their lifetime. How much more does that ramp up the price. Do we have price fixing, do we control price, do we state beautification increases the value a few percentages or a few thousand dollars. In other words how DO we value a house before and after renovations?
Can I improve my home and price it out of people?
And the same for the rich. If they purchase a 2,000,000 home and are told the home will improve in value over time several millions. They pump in a solid 1,000,000 and all of a sudden the home can be sold on the market for 5,450,000 dollars.
Again at what point and how do we treat homes?
The problem is that it's the opposite HP.Cobra said. If we did ZILA(Zero-Interest Loan Act) because we don't care about money until the 4th or 5th place of important i.e. Race, Nation, Community, and then maybe 4th and 5th economics. We care not to squeeze money out of people but rather make a profitable community where the private sector secures the financial gains of the citizens.
We pay outrages prices for homes usually paying a loan or mortgage for 10-15-20-30 years. And funny enough that is cool but getting a loan and paying a significant amount of money + interest in just a few years is the best.
Rather like Cobra said we loan to a person and tell them they have 15-20-30 years or more several decades basically to pay off the debt and boom fair game.
Another possibility is make economic courts or have judges trained in economic policies. And cancel the debt. Let's say I'm AMD and I'm asking for a loan to repurchase Global Foundries not just a loan to purchase GloFlo but to stimulate money into it a pay for materia, tools, and machinery and upgun GloFlo into a powerful large American Semi-conductor manufacturer.
Well since AMD has a track record of being around since the late-60s along with Intel. The 800lb Gorilla vs the Chimpanzee as the meme jokes of AMD vs Intel are.
And funny enough with the fact the country is improving AMD is raking in profits despite the fact they decided to pay their loan out in 15 years cause they do generate a lot of capital. Well funny enough it gets to the point of "What is the point of paying back the loan?"
AMD majorly important U.S. manufacturer, check. Long time existence, check. Dr. Lisa Su kicking ass at AMD and putting the company into a beast, check. etc.etc.
At the end if all the checks are there and AMD rakes in a plethora of financial capital. Then again the question needs to be asked "Why does AMD even need to waste it's resources to build up a capital payment of loan debt". Cancel the debt and let them reinvest their money into the company thus the several millions of dollars they acquired are multiplied by their extreme importance in the U.S. and World's economy. After all being the 2nd biggest x86 Manufacturer your gonna be killing it in the financial gains.
It's also like HP.Cobra said if you fail on a loan. As long as you did by the book i.e. legal. Perhaps cancelling the debt and letting the person return back to their work not as a business owner but as an employee.
In other words WHY should a person who failed at their loan due a failing business be utterly annihilated to oblivion in a kike way of "You fucken goy die you financially destitute piece of shit. You pay that fucking loan with interest and penalties till your shitting money for us."
Again why the hell should a person who did everything legally be held fully responsible to the point of utter annihilation. Like HP.Cobra said "People shouldn't be scared into avoiding risk by not being allowed to receive loans simply from the annihilation". A forgiveness program both to successful businesses that rake in money like crazy or legal failures that are an acceptable loss for forgiveness. Now of course if your a scumbag and racketeer and or launder the money and cook the books and do nonsensical bullshit with the loan. Okay then in that case the Justice system should step in and deal with punishment.
Inflation wise 20-30 times price cut of 90-95% is another interesting thing. For example a Bel Air ugly as fuck half-billion dollar mansion is being sold. Yeah 500,000,000 kinda like the Billion dollar Texas mansion some billionaire made. Well funny enough dropping the price 90-95% equates it to about a 5.2 to 5.5 million dollar purchase. Using my anti-inflation model it's worth about 16.7 to 25 million. Very interesting model to use.
I think this might fall into a situation whereby is everything so cheap that we are literally rich as fuck. Or a situation of everything is so cheap that when we remodulate and fix everything we have to build a baseline or price fixing or something.
For example in Germany the STG44 was 70-80 dollars our current M4 is roughly around the STG45 range. Is that a good thing having a baseline price. Or is the price cut of 90-95% the correct model i.e. an M4 costing 7.8 to 7.4 dollars.
In other words you state HOUSES but what about other items. Both are fine models to use the 20-30 is making the M4 cost 30ish while your model is less than 10 dollars. It's akin to something like back during the Civil war where a Winchester cost a months pay for the people who deployed Winchesters in this War.
IF aggrandizing of the Human populace does the opposite in a proper society it closes time and space and makes things cheaper more affordable and better quality. Then should there be a baseline and if so with a baseline what about improvements.
A home is an investment for many. If they put in money how far should that increase go. Like I said could I sell my home but risk pricing it out of many's hands. Well does that want to purchase and are curious on the house would they pay so high in comparison to another home that is properly priced. I told them the house was remodeled so price was adjusted. But without market speculation or free market. What in the end does the Home do? and I'm not stating the obvious I mean really what IS investment of hard assets in our discussion?