Global Finance Has Housing Needs Too – Cities After…

25

Miguel explains why landlords & global finance produce luxury housing and withhold housing from the market instead of actually addressing the housing crisis.

“The development of advanced speculative financial instruments is rapidly allowing the treatment of homes closer to pure exchange value in the global financial system. A house is just a commodity that can be accumulated and hedged for others in the pursuit of profit. Like many other derivatives or commodities, housing is a speculative instrument and this is its main purpose. Simply put, the housing of people is not its main business.” – Miguel Robles-Durán

This is a clip from S03 E05 of Cities After… The Problems with Supply and Demand in the Housing Market

Watch the full episode on our YouTube channel at https://youtu.be/drw75mdA9Ow

You can also listen to this show on our website or as a podcast on your favorite podcast player.

Cities After… is a bi-weekly podcast about the future of cities; grounded in our daily urban struggles, it is part dystopian and part utopian. The intention is to entice civic imagination into action, because a more just and sustainable urban future is possible.

Miguel Robles-Durán is an urbanist with expertise in the design and analysis of complex urban systems and urban political-ecology. He is an associate professor of urbanism and director of the graduate urban programs at The New School / Parsons School of Design in New York City. Read his full bio on our website.
https://www.democracyatwork.info/cities_after

Cities After… is a @democracyatwrk production, made possible by audience donations. Consider donating to Democracy at Work with a monthly or one-time gift. Our monthly supporters are invaluable to us, in that they allow us to plan for the future, and commit to bringing you more media from an anti-capitalist and pro-workplace democracy perspective. Thank you.

To support our work: https://www.democracyatwork.info/donate
__________________________________________________________________________
Check out the 2021 Hardcover edition of “Understanding Marxism,” with a new, lengthy introduction by Richard Wolff! https://www.democracyatwork.info/books

“Marxism always was the critical shadow of capitalism. Their interactions changed them both. Now Marxism is once again stepping into the light as capitalism shakes from its own excesses and confronts decline.” – Richard Wolff

Check out all of d@w’s books: “The Sickness is the System,” “Understanding Socialism,” by Richard D. Wolff, and “Stuck Nation” by Bob Hennelly
https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/democracyatwork
__________________________________________________________________________
Follow us ONLINE:
Website: https://www.democracyatwork.info
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/democracyatwork
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/democracyatwrk
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/democracyatwrk
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/democracyatwrk
Daily Motion: https://www.dailymotion.com/democracyatwrk
Shop our Union Coop-Made Merch: https://www.democracy-at-work-shop.myshopify.com
Visit our books page: https://www.democracyatwork.info/books

source

25 COMMENTS

  1. I thought this was always the case. Banks, RE Brokers, Appraisers, Towns and Cities that tax on property values, it's only about making money. The American people have been sold on this one way to make real money, invest in real estate. If it wasn't only about making money, it wouldn't be American capitalism.

  2. Commie logic… They identify who has what they want…or need…===>>>..ie "rich" people…. then demonize them…like saying profit is theft…..or the rich exploit poor people.. so then that justifies stealing their property…… There ya go…Marxism in a nutshell..and Bob's your uncle…

  3. Communist China is a better invironment for ♥
    Capitalism. Her people is made as capitalist's work force, guided by the communist government. By offering government resources as free : dormitory , electricity, water, and transportation.

  4. Housing must not be a profitmaking business. Like any infrastructure, it must be a government built enterprise. Providing shelter is a social good like freeways, parks and streetlights. Apartments must be provided at truly affordable prices, no more than a third of income on a sliding scale, and must be built quickly and not so minimally as to be unliveable long term. After WWII individual homes were built quickly and affordably and many apartment projects also were constructed at reasonable cost. The will to build and finance dwellings was there. The mechanism to accomplish the task was invented with the GI Bill. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were invented for financing the program. If our government wanted this as a social good and deemed it a necessity government built and run apartments would happen.

    But a better idea is government built and occupant owned and run cooperatives. They would be occupied but not passed down to subsequent generations. They would be owned and maintained for a lifetime and then be occupied by new tenants. The housing stock wouldn't be used to build personal inheritable wealth, but rather to protect and shelter individuals and families until there was a vacancy and someone else needed the place, or the building required major renovation or replacement. If this were the situation everywhere people could still move when they wanted to and be assured of finding an affordable place to live. People would learn to cooperate with neighbors because they have a stake in how the coop is run and maintained over time. People would not be homeless because shelter with care for those who need it would be available. Necessary conveniences would be available to everyone as needed too, such as walkable neighborhoods with grocery stores, laundry facilities, schools and shops incorporated into these complexes along with nearby public transportation.

    Currently, luxury dwellings are built that way but affordable, liveable units are neglected. That's because profit is the reason housing is built and maintained, or perhaps as is often the case not maintained to increase profitability. Shops crop up where profit is greatest, and lately, online shopping is replacing neighborhood shops. But convenience is missing. Being able to drop by a green grocer for fruit on the way home, or stop in to get a haircut at a neighborhood barber or hair salon is a sad loss in many places. Planned communities would make our cities much more liveable and attractive and it all could happen if politicians decided that housing is a necessity. Our towns and cities would be places that people respected because they would be living in these places for long periods. The churn that occurres in proft making apartment communities would be eliminated. As the system works now, when the rent becomes unaffordable, because wages are always behind rents, the whole building occupancy changes. There is no sense of community or community responsibility because we are at the mercy of the owners. We have little control over our lives and living conditions. Profit drives the system, not convenience, affordability and cooperation. What we have now is unworkable. It does not fulfill human need for shelter, convenience and community.

  5. I love seeing 2_3_4 million dollar homes, next to/across from houses about to be condemned for dilapidation. It warms the heart to see the working class literally forced out of their own existence.

  6. The construction of multi-million dollar skyscraper apartments has no connection whatsoever to the "housing crisis" we're worrying about. Those 'dwellings' are created as investments for the uber-rich, mostly not even to be lived in, and have no relation to housing for normal people. The fact that Miguel feels that what we should be doing is confiscating the wealth of the uber-rich in order to subsidize "affordable housing" is basically a political/philosophical position that represents his personal ideology.

  7. In a profit driven economy the point is not to produce and distribute goods and services. In a profit driven economy the point is to do so at a profit. So, instead of a simply producing and distributing goods and services to a given population, a competitive, profit driven, economy has to create a whole system of inefficiencies just to keep track of who is winning and losing… and to enforce the results.

    Winning and losing is not a necessary part of producing and distributing goods and services. Insisting upon having winners and losers is a result of who it is that sets up and maintains economies. And, in fact, it changes the actual definition of what an economy is actually intended to do. A market economy is a way of producing and distributing goods and services so that an ever smaller group of people can own an ever larger share of what is being produced.

    It's the addition of competition and profit that change a rational system into a tyrannical one.

    And the kind of people that set up governments and market economies prefer tyrannical systems.

  8. Nobody said if you build enough houses the price will decrease. If you have a source, I'll accept that at least one person said it. Building enough housing will only slow the ascent of rent.

    The only built rich people housing because the financial crisis clogged up the financing pipeline with junk that doesn't disappear for 30 years. The upper income loans do not carry the same risk. This problem could be solved by the government backing loans.

    40k vacant subsidized units does sound suspicious. I wonder why this is?

  9. Houses that remain empty for more than 6 months have to pay a tax in my country. I believe the tax also increases when the property has stayed vacant for longer, so after 1 year, 2 years, … Unfair? It prevents waste. Building put a strain on the environment. Land has a use, it's being planned, use for living, agriculture, … And when the use is for living, someone is expected to actually live there. This tax also provides honest competition in the market: price too high and nobody can afford? Have to lower or get taxed. Justice!

Comments are closed.