Is it Smart Housing Slavery via Free Market Development by 1%?

Young buddies employed in new private sectors in particular seem to live for work and in many cases to pay off heavy mortgages and other loans rather than the other way around. Ideally, competition is supposed to bring down prices of commodities, other products and services. There are examples of this happening, e.g. telecom (the long-term spy project). However, there are many examples of the opposite. Generally speaking, a healthy society provides conditions for their citizens to be able to educate, acquire skills, be gainfully employed, buy a house, car or have access to transport facilities, medical services, recreation and contribute to the community welfare. Conditions for a good and comfortable life is provided in such societies while preserving the physical and social environment, the latter in a conflict free, cohesive way.

Citizens live in happiness and spend their non-working days and hours in pursuit of other interests such as reading, recreation, reflection, writing, sports, travel, helping others and more. There is work and life balance. But the conditions of life that have been created by the free market mindless development economy and associated practices have brought many pressures and challenges that have compromised freedom of living.

Urban living has been constructed in such away that one or both partners in a family have to work and earn a living. This is not the problem. All have to work and pay taxes to the government which in turn spends them on services, infrastructure etc. However, with the income received one has to pay rent or if one has bought an apartment or house need to pay the mortgage. One has to buy consumables like food, clothing, and medicine. There are various kinds of insurance / banking products and other services one has to pay regularly viz telecom, electricity, water, gas, and other local fees. In addition, there are various indirect taxes too. If the couple has children, there are further expenses. The point is that when a small family pays all these expenses, there is very little left for personal enjoyment and entertainment that can contribute to their quality of life. While the new populist Govt's primary role is to manage the reserves and enrich its sponsors to ensure repeating electoral success next time.

There are lessons to be learned from the tale some cities for other countries that are driving the same model of free market economic growth at any cost and avoid the negative social consequences. When the speculators drive some parts of the economies such as the housing sector for their own ends and the governments provide tax concessions and necessary legal and tax frameworks, conditions of living created for the rest of the population become rather bleak to the point of losing the freedom to live for many.

The real question to ask is whether following neo-liberal policies as done by the right-wing leaders in popular groups suits our society. Neoliberalism is a theory of individualism that believes that the effort of one in competition with others in working for gain will lift all others as his gain will trickle down when others are employed by him. So, the theory is that the state should give him free rein to bring about material gain. The collective efforts of individuals, so encouraged, will ensure that society profits.

In the West, the theory has not worked. It has rather made the rich get richer. The top 1% now control the wealth of the rest. We find elections rigged, EVM tampered, populism released and results brought about that political power will pass into the hands of those nominated or sponsored by the rich.

While the new populist Govt's primary role is to manage the reserves and enrich its sponsors to ensure repeating electoral success next time.

Content Link