Oh wow, thanks for putting so much thought into your replies! Aside from the couple times you’ve resorted to insults I’ve really enjoyed our back and forth conversation. It’s been a mostly good faith exchange.

I know some Internet person isn’t going to change your closely held beliefs in a random thread, so I’m not going to try to do that. I also admit that many of my beliefs are inconsistent with most of what is to be found in places like this, so I don’t take it personally when I’m met with vehement disagreement.

Nationalised industries do not need to profit

What may have gone unnoticed is that I used the word “quality”. In my experience no quality good or service has ever been provided by a large entity (government, corporation, etc…) without profit motive. National parks in the US are close, but mostly because governmental benign neglect is as close to the natural state as we get, so doing very little is doing very little harm to a system that without human participation would be in equilibrium.

Industries that do not have profit motive operate on altruism or largesse (sometimes both). Altruism cannot run high quality national scale entities, there just aren’t enough folks who reject profit while still doing their best work. Largesse can run small and large operations, but at national government scale they become so wasteful that delivering quality becomes impossible. This is where my comment about nationalized housing stock being equivalent to the projects came from.

The mythical large government who cares about their people and delivers high quality services at scale has not, nor ever will, exist.

Are you… really gonna pretend you’ve never heard of landlords

No. But I also refuse to pretend that all landlords are evil by definition. I think PE funds and foreign nationals probably have motives which do not align with those of their renters, or the overall improvement of the quality of life in the US, so large scale ownership of domestic housing stock by entities like those poses issues, which I’ve already said we should address. But I have no problem with a small shop owning a handful of units, and seeking to make a profit.

You’re a fucking landlord, aren’t you?

Not unless you count me owning the home I live in as being my own landlord.

it could only happen under a government that genuinely wants to and can work for the people.

I think this situation is possible, but not at national scale.

When did I say there’s “no way up”?

When you implied individuals cannot succeed and instead must appeal to a higher power (national scale government) which has zero evidence that it has ever existed.

You are the one saying it’s impossible, not me. You are the one saying there’s no hope for change.

I’m saying that Internet echo chamber groupthink pushing for larger government is what will not work. There’s hope for change, but people have to be accountable to themselves first.

I agree that we should prioritize quality of life for everyone, and we must take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Doing those things requires large scale solutions, no doubt about it. It’s just doubtful that nationalizing the entire housing stock will achieve those ends.