social housing (5), censoring of the day

weird, i wonder as if that is supposed to be a warning that i got a request for a google pw after i was still signed on, at least so to see.

today i replied on an article in alJ, that was in the stretch of it quite positive about economical reforms, but took quite the standard apologetic aproach and rather consistently mixed up prioritys even with perhapses.

now that is a way to censor things, you say : ok we do economical reforms, and they be.....
(some sequence in some ordre).

but if the elements of the sequence are inconsistent (eg. pensions that depends social housing),
and the ordre is wrong, people will usually start with the first element they see to remember and in their naivety to 'promote change'.

so that article *needed* to be critisised over its application of psychological repression in a propagandical way, but it didnt post.

annoyed as i was i read it all, after all assuming 'good faith' thoroughly sceptical,
and what stood out is the man prioritised the standard hit the poor, capitalist gains, and economic reform ended a remote fourth.

they allways do, the rich and settled. and the trick to mix priorities with distractions is a standard receipe. (actually the raison d'etre of conservative ada. (Also Disguised As) liberals.)

so about social housing.

the idea is that when housing is cheap, sustainable and a right plenty of the effects of crisii (nr's of crisis), can be prevailed and more easily dealt with.

housing has traditionally been a thing to span generations and it still should. a house is not an investment it is a necessity for life, so

fundamentally according to the constitutions (and damn them who don't) we have a right on life.
furthermore housing and also ground transactions are not what they used. the former aristocratical distribution of rewards for soils and parcels that was obviously also another historical case of subsidising the rich through taxing the poor, and how it transformed into a similarly lukewarm system has been wittingly changed even a few years ago, after long campaigning.

in the , lets label it "neocon" altho the 'neo' is rather superfluous, the conn allways been that,
decades of profiteering privateering called privatisation, (the with any means obfuscating ownership of anything belonging to others so as to make it appear yours only is one of that words definitions)

in that lethal killing and robbery spree of the rich, social housing has been further transformed to a farce.

even very old, very cheap, very payed off, very strong, social housing projects have formal rents that are absolutely unwarranted (actually comparing to eg big private houses).

since many people are still poor, poorer then ever even, ofcourse they cannot pay such rents.
(in the 1980s the realist precarity free (so over poverty level) acceptable rent was about 10% of a minimum income. overhere it never got closer then some 20-25, and in many cases, due to cloudy regulation , and exploits much worse.

but these high rents are for the most part artificial and partly , partly in another way that has allways been, partly a huge fraud.

the rich took everything for about nothing (privatisation), they destroyed it's workings and integrity, and worse of all, they pay themselves for it amounts we cannot even imagine.

while: regulations and purposed marginalisation of the lower classes mean the formal level of rent (pre- subsidy) is ridiculous, nevertheless the already high prices in this era of foreclosure is only intended (so far had been only so intended) to rise.

and it did, for every poor housed a corrupt rich get's the same and moreof income the township gets to maintain and (if they still ever did) perform social housing.

actually they destroyed a lot of it and replaced much of it with short term habitational complexes meant to last only 30 years (and at least 4 times to high expense for housing that mounts up to.)

so social housing and also the housing function for the poor of inner citys btw., was destroyed, fake prices were formally set, the rich payed through the taxes generally raised from the poor.

such a goose with golden eggs the capitalists (ada liberals etc etc) do not want to let go of,

rather they stare at it's arse and pretend to be decent.