Rather: these problems are not solved because there are not enough geniuses who are capable of convincing the masses to send the responsible politicians to hell.
People support policies that make housing much less affordable (e.g. rent controls) and oppose policies that would make housing more affordable (e.g. zoning reforms). Saying that it's evil politicians that cause this crisis is dishonest - it's what people want.
"Convincing the masses to send these politicians to hell" is thus nearly isomorphic to making the masses hate politicians who create such laws, which at least very likely implies that by convincing the masses to send these politicians to hell, a different mindset emerges in the masses.
Yes and general population LOVES these laws, even though they are harmful to them. But anyway - you've got your causality reversed - it's voting masses that incentivize rent controls and other shitty politics. Remember that to implement your policies you've got to actually win elections. And since people generally don't understand n-order effects for n>=2, it's really easy to win elections with populist policies.
I can only say that in Germany, where I live, in my gut feeling the situation is very different: politicians imposing various laws "for the common good" and many parts of the populations hate these laws because this implies even more red tape.
The City of Vienna is the largest landlord in Europe. It is also the only capital in Europe without a stifling rent or housing crisis.
The amount of housing in the city won't grow but it will free up a big part of peoples income that would otherwise go to landlords. That helps the local economy with more consumer spending, and makes it easier to save up or apply for a loan so you can start a business.
You get a better economy and more money in the average persons wallet without raising taxes. The only ones who lose are commercial landlords, and they will stay profitable by design so it's easy to shut down any complaints. And you get better quality apartments as a side effect because the only way to get more money out of existing properties is to spend more on fixing them.
> The only ones who lose are commercial landlords, and they will stay profitable by design so it's easy to shut down any complaints.
No, also people who would like to move into city would lose, because that would become literally impossible. You'd have like 15 years waiting lists for housing.
> And you get better quality apartments as a side effect because the only way to get more money out of existing properties is to spend more on fixing them.
Why would anyone fix apartment that's under rent control? If you mean system like in Berlin, then I've got bad news - people there are actually frequently not allowed to renovate even THEIR OWN apartments.
so, how do you think we can do this?
For a lack of deep knowledge in this area, I don't think I have answers for this, but if one is interested in working on this problem, my approach would be to start with diving deeply into scientific literature about psychology and sociology to find out
- what convinces people to change their opinions,
- what causes people to take action
etc.
So when I think of going through any media like scientific publications, I wonder how to discern and point out the captured and biased media vs the more objective ones (or at least the ones that don't have a hidden financial motive behind them). I wish our scientific community had better disclaimers and traceability for financial influence in every paper we could read.
This is exactly the hard part: a topic which many people in more applied scientific disciplines worry about. Welcome to the real word, Neo. :-)
Again, I don't have definite answer, but rough guidelines are:
- is a result too good to be true?
- is some result coherent to results that are much more established?
- why would you assume that the author is unbiased or biased? (biases not only have financial reasons)
- which agenda does the author have (yes, deep pursuit for scientific truth is also an agenda? Nobody is free of an agenda)
- does the author make an effort to explain how the findings could be explained in an alternative way that makes the result look much less impressive?
- could the results be reproduced in other labs?
- which is the minimum amount of facts that you must believe in (like axioms) such that the result holds?
- ...
The hard part is indeed that we have to exert all this effort to get past the noise that I (and maybe you) feel a responsible author should have already done for us.
And with AI: I was hoping it would help us filter through this noise. So far, I feel lost in how to use AI to help me filter through prejudice and bias, and hidden motives and intentions, when the very filters given to us in the mainstream AIs we are sold are doing that same very bias and incoherency and hidden agendas. I retain my hope, however! Thank you for some solace and inspiration here, friend!
Kinda seems true. And the worst people in history often don’t seem super dumb, despite their various other defects.
You can be smart and chase the money, but it's crazy hubris to assume that only your peer set of money-chasers are smart.
It's a small leap from there to "since we're the only smart people, we should get to have the most influence."
If you aren't female (reproductive rights), LGBTQ+, an immigrant now hunted by ice, someone in need of SNAP, Medicaid, or emergency aid in a blue state, it might feel like both are the same I guess. If you are one of the above, and now suffer because so many voted based on 'both are the same', you very much feel a difference today than from the US under Biden. If you were one of America's allies but are now constantly attacked, you feel a difference today. If you are Ukraine, you feel a difference today.
I suppose there was Project 2025, and there was that book about the inevitability of Russian hegemony (or empire or something) that Putin liked. Those got attention with influential people. Not sure what to conclude from that.
I could talk about this for hours, and was last night actually.
What do vanguardist communism, feudalism, liberal democracy, and fascism have in common? A shared belief that the general population is composed of a bunch of dumb dumbs that need super smart (read: politically educated) people to "lead" them.
Seems subjective. When is the smartness, big smart enough to allow someone to enter the hallowed ranks of "actually a real human allowed to speak for the masses?"
There does seem to be a clear delineation between the people you hear about (the vanguard in our example), and the people you don't hear about (the masses): willingness to create confrontation. Most people want to just go with the flow, live in peace. In a dichotomy I've been calling "choose peace or violence," they choose peace. They choose to see bad things in the world or their life and focus on managing their happiness around it.
I think that this is the default human mode of existence, and that this mode lacks defenses against people willing to violate the default peace. Imagine a bagel line, and someone cutting that line, and when tapped on the shoulder, the cutter breaking into a huge tantrum, and people in line backing down with a "Jesus! It's not worth it, fine." Thus some people learn that they can be much more selfish in life if they're willing to create confrontation and disturb the peace.
When I talk to people about agitation, civil disobedience, or even just unionizing, the most common thing I hear is anxiety. What if the situation gets worse, what if there's reprisals, what if I lose this little bit of comfort that I've managed to be happy with? That slice could get smaller and smaller but people aren't willing to take the step to say "enough is enough" because I think it fundamentally goes against human nature, we have to sacrifice our own happiness on some level to put our foot down and demand or make change. At minimum we have to acknowledge the discomfort or injustice, which is a diversion from our constructed internal peace.
Personally I think people should be allowed to live in peace. Maybe the liberal democrats and vanguardist communists are right, maybe most people shouldn't need to trouble themselves with the greater direction of their society. However I think the stability this promises is false; in fact I think all stability is false. I think this constructed peace that people are afraid to disrupt clearly can be torn apart at any moment, not just by people willing to create conflict, but by a literal earthquake, or fire, or plague. Therefore I think there's a couple societies in history that got it right: ones who distributed the responsibility of society across all individuals in the society; namely the brief period of syndicalized Spain, and the several hundred thousand years of certain tribes of native Americans on the eastern portion of the continent. There may be other societies in history, these are just the cases I've been able to read about so far.
It seems to me that it's possible and necessary for all people to be ready to wake out of their constructed peace long enough to make adjustments together to maintain it. I don't think this is the same thing as them being "led out of it," I think this is each individual being on some level alert to the need to spontaneously say "no, here we wait in line for our bagels. No, screaming about it won't help you, get to the back of the line. Look around: everyone is laughing at how silly you look."
That was not premise of fascism. Certainly not Hitlers one, he himself was self-taught and did not framed himself as highly educated. He considered himself better then educated people. The origin of his superiority was not "smart" it was "strong will and power itself".
It was not the original premise of feudalism either. That was was about military might, basically.
And origins of liberal democracy are not "smart based" either.