How would the world look like without capitalism? Would it be a better world?

[noname223]

Still my keyboard is not working properly. Soon I will go to an expert. It annoys me as fuck.

I think for a long time historians criticized what if questions. I think they are now slighty less negative on it I think but I am not sure. One reason why they are critical I think is that you often have to speculate. It is hard to give scentific answers for these fictional scenarios.

I am a leftwinger but I think the world might would look worse without capitalism. I think capitalism brought many innovations. Due to capitalism there is a lot of progress in sciences. There is more life quallity due to new technologies. Markets are more efficicent than the alternatives. Though I think capitalism has to be tamed. Like in Scandinavia in order to function properly. I think the welfare state should increase further and there are signs that this is happening.

There could be debates which system would have been developed without capitalism. I could imagine without capitalism there was no socialism. I think socialism was a response to the grievances that capitalism created. Not sure though I could be wrong.
I could imagine we would be more in harmony with our environment without capitalism. Even though the factories in socialist states also destroyed the nature. I think it is pretty hard to determine in which system we now would live in.

I think there were way less humans on earth without capitalism. As an antinatalist you might consider this as good. I think there would have been less food and worse health care without capitalism. Thus less humans.
However we would probably not mass murder insane amounts of animals every single day in a horrific way.

Moreover the climate catastrophe would probably less likely without capitalism. You cannot imagine how fucking annoyed I am due to my keyboard. It is screwing me.


I think if I had to decide to live in a world with capitalism or an unknown world without capitalism. I might pick the former one. Though I am not sure. I willl probably have to kill myself because of poverty. And in some sense capitalism is to be blamed for that. But in a world without capitalism there might be even way more poverty. And no internet which can distract me from my horrible life. On the other hand my mom abused me so that I become successful. Especially in material matters. Maybe the capitalistic narrative that money is the most important in life has contributed to her actions. I could imagine that very well.

 

[makethepainstop]

History tends to support capitalism. Communism, fascism, and NAZI, just don't seem to do to well. Capitalism increases technologic development, so far.

 

[Julgran]

Still my keyboard is not working properly. Soon I will go to an expert. It annoys me as fuck.

I think for a long time historians criticized what if questions. I think they are now slighty less negative on it I think but I am not sure. One reason why they are critical I think is that you often have to speculate. It is hard to give scentific answers for these fictional scenarios.

I am a leftwinger but I think the world might would look worse without capitalism. I think capitalism brought many innovations. Due to capitalism there is a lot of progress in sciences. There is more life quallity due to new technologies. Markets are more efficicent than the alternatives. Though I think capitalism has to be tamed. Like in Scandinavia in order to function properly. I think the welfare state should increase further and there are signs that this is happening.

There could be debates which system would have been developed without capitalism. I could imagine without capitalism there was no socialism. I think socialism was a response to the grievances that capitalism created. Not sure though I could be wrong.
I could imagine we would be more in harmony with our environment without capitalism. Even though the factories in socialist states also destroyed the nature. I think it is pretty hard to determine in which system we now would live in.

I think there were way less humans on earth without capitalism. As an antinatalist you might consider this as good. I think there would have been less food and worse health care without capitalism. Thus less humans.
However we would probably not mass murder insane amounts of animals every single day in a horrific way.

Moreover the climate catastrophe would probably less likely without capitalism. You cannot imagine how fucking annoyed I am due to my keyboard. It is screwing me.


I think if I had to decide to live in a world with capitalism or an unknown world without capitalism. I might pick the former one. Though I am not sure. I willl probably have to kill myself because of poverty. And in some sense capitalism is to be blamed for that. But in a world without capitalism there might be even way more poverty. And no internet which can distract me from my horrible life. On the other hand my mom abused me so that I become successful. Especially in material matters. Maybe the capitalistic narrative that money is the most important in life has contributed to her actions. I could imagine that very well.

Just as socialism is unsustainable in the short- and long-term, I believe that capitalism is unsustainable in the long-term, since, eventually, we will need to find some meaning to life and existing, which working and accumulating wealth cannot do - in my opinion. In other words, capitalism may be the best financial system, but it's probably not the best human system.

 

[October112021]

Marx's Capital, Volume III, Section 25:

Transformation of the actually functioning capitalist into a mere manager, administrator of other people's capital, and of the owner of capital into a mere owner, a mere money-capitalist. Even if the dividends which they receive include the interest and the profit of enterprise, i.e., the total profit (for the salary of the manager is, or should be, simply the wage of a specific type of skilled labour, whose price is regulated in the labour-market like that of any other labour), this total profit is henceforth received only in the form of interest, i.e., as mere compensation for owning capital that now is entirely divorced from the function in the actual process of reproduction, just as this function in the person of the manager is divorced from ownership of capital. Profit thus appears (no longer only that portion of it, the interest, which derives its justification from the profit of the borrower) as a mere appropriation of the surplus-labour of others, arising from the conversion of means of production into capital, i.e., from their alienation vis-à-vis the actual producer, from their antithesis as another's property to every individual actually at work in production, from manager down to the last day-labourer. In stock companies the function is divorced from capital ownership, hence also labour is entirely divorced from ownership of means of production and surplus-labour. This result of the ultimate development of capitalist production is a necessary transitional phase towards the reconversion of capital into the property of producers, although no longer as the private property of the individual producers, but rather as the property of associated producers, as outright social property. On the other hand, the stock company is a transition toward the conversion of all functions in the reproduction process which still remain linked with capitalist property, into mere functions of associated producers, into social functions.

Before we go any further, there is still the following economically important fact to be noted: Since profit here assumes the pure form of interest, undertakings of this sort are still possible if they yield bare interest, and this is one of the causes, stemming the fall of the general rate of profit, since such undertakings, in which the ratio of constant capital to the variable is so enormous, do not necessarily enter into the equalisation of the general rate of profit.

[Since Marx wrote the above, new forms of industrial enterprises have developed, as we know, representing the second and third degree of stock companies. The daily growing speed with which production may be enlarged in all fields of large-scale industry today, is offset by the ever-greater slowness with which the market for these increased products expands. What the former turns out in months, can scarcely be absorbed by the latter in years. Add to this the protective tariff policy, by which every industrial country shuts itself off from all others, particularly from England, and also artificially increases domestic production capacity. The results are a general chronic over-production, depressed prices, falling and even wholly disappearing profits; in short, the old boasted freedom of competition has reached the end of its tether and must itself announce its obvious, scandalous bankruptcy. And in every country this is taking place through the big industrialists of a certain branch joining in a cartel for the regulation of production. A committee fixes the quantity to be produced by each establishment and is the final authority for distributing the incoming orders. Occasionally even international cartels were established, as between the English and German iron industries. But even this form of association in production did not suffice. The antagonism of interests between the individual firms broke through it only too often, restoring competition. This led in some branches, where the scale of production permitted, to the concentration of the entire production of that branch of industry in one big joint-stock company under single management. This has been repeatedly effected in America; in Europe the biggest example so far is the United Alkali Trust, which has brought all British alkali production into the hands of a single business firm. The former owners of the more than thirty individual plants have received shares for the appraised value of their entire establishments, totalling about £5 million, which represent the fixed capital of the trust. The technical management remains in the same hands as before, but business control is concentrated in the hands of the general management. The floating capital, totalling about £1 million, was offered to the public for subscription. The total capital is, therefore, £6 million. Thus, in this branch, which forms the basis of the whole chemical industry, competition has been replaced by monopoly in England, and the road has been paved, most gratifyingly, for future expropriation by the whole of society, the nation. — F.E.]

This is the abolition of the capitalist mode of production within the capitalist mode of production itself, and hence a self-dissolving contradiction, which prima facie represents a mere phase of transition to a new form of production. It manifests itself as such a contradiction in its effects. It establishes a monopoly in certain spheres and thereby requires state interference. It reproduces a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators and simply nominal directors; a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation promotion, stock issuance, and stock speculation. It is private production without the control of private property.

Tl;dr: capitalism evolves. From local industry and local commerce to globalization, from small family firms to big multinationals without obvious controllers other than anonymous shareholders. In so doing, it abolishes its own preconditions.

.

 

[LesbianCarpetPython]

Well, this is a hard one because without capitalism then we wouldn't have the basis for communism. I'm sure that communism wants to take whats good from capitalism while removing all the bad and exploitation that comes from. It's true that capitalism lifted millions out of poverty but as time goes on you can see cracks forming and a new system needing to replace it.

 

[sserafim]

Capitalism is the root of all evil. I think that there would be a better world without capitalism. There would be less exploitation and suffering. Unfortunately, it's easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism. It's called capitalist realism…

 

[DarkRange55]

Capitalism is the root of all evil. I think that there would be a better world without capitalism. There would be less exploitation and suffering. Unfortunately, it's easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism. It's called capitalist realism…

Capitalism or greed? I'm sure someone will argue its a product of greed but thats missing the point of my question

 

[sserafim]

Capitalism or greed? I'm sure someone will argue its a product of greed but thats missing the point of my question

Capitalism is inherently exploitative, it relies on the exploitation of workers and their labor

 

[DarkRange55]

Capitalism is inherently exploitative, it relies on the exploitation of workers and their labor

Is it the best system? No. Is it perfect? No. Has it worked the best so far in the modern world? Probably. What is the best alternative? Probably some sort of Star Trek-style resource-based economy.

Currency is simply a form of counting. Should a person who works on brains be oayed the same as someone who scrubs toilets? Some would say you get oayed in proportion to the problems you solve. You hand someone a coffee, mininum wage. You colonize Mars, a trillionaire. HOWEVER, I'm NOT arguing that people shouldn't have a good standard of living or be indentured servants or be homeless and all that. But I do think that people who put in extra effort should be rewarded. Does that mean we need a corporate cesspool run by oligarchic-billionaires? NO. But what is the best alternative system CURRENTLY to capitalism? I don't know if I have the answer. Maybe a hybrid of socialism and capitalism? Communism is great on paper but given human nature isn't functional and always leads to dictatorship historically. Has the current system screwed people over? Yes. But what we currently have is not laissez-faire capitalism, it is crony capitalism - the government deems a company is too big to fail, ect. Any system will have corruption. No country is without out it. Some granted, have less than others.
We are currently running a growing welfare state and I do believe we need more engineerings, scientists and entrepreneurs. Government doesn't create jobs, they are bureaucrats. Entrepreneurs create jobs.

Capitalism (in theory) seems like society's way of voting on things they like. They like this brand of cupcakes but not this brand.
It does seem to spur the most innovation.

First of all I think it's within the government's power and within its scope to provide welfare for people. I don't have a problem with that. Well the problem I have with welfare in general is the way that we go about doing it. Because there's this unfortunate tendency of people who don't get welfare to think all the people on welfare are just slackers and they just don't wanna work. And while that's probably true for some of these people and there's always people who take advantage of anything. But the thing is most people don't want to be unemployed, most people don't wanna have to feel like they're dependent on somebody else for their livelihood. And so instead of just handing these people a check which doesn't do anything to move them up in society. We need to provide them with access education, training, better jobs. Money alone doesn't do anything. And so much of that is just waste. And there's no way to regulate what that money is being spent on. I'm for legalizing drugs but I don't think we should be paying for people's drug habits if possible.

In my opinion it's not about reducing wealth inequality through taxes specifically, it's about using the surplus of money from actually taxing the wealthy to enrich our schools and infrastructure which just gives people a better shot at life in general.

This is my thing on healthcare: If someone could put a proposal in front of me that gives us a way to make prices reasonable so that poor people can get fuckin' healthcare without the government having to offer healthcare to them, I'm all for that. If you can find a way to do that without the government having to introduce its own program, you can sell me on that. But that doesn't seem to be going down. The insurance companies are fucking evil. I think that they could find a way to pass new laws to regulate the way that insurance companies are run that would eliminate the need for a government program. Cost is outrageous. And you know that the cost on drugs is way more than it needs to be because now you can get all the generic versions of older drugs, more common drugs for almost nothing. So what's the excuse on all these newer drugs that they come out with? I don't think an insurance company should be able to fucking drop you because you get sick. Whats the point of health insurance if they won't pay for your health. If you get cancer you shouldn't get dropped from your insurance company. If the insurance company doesn't want to deal with the risk of insuring people who might have cancer, I guess they shouldn't be in the insurance business. That's how I feel about that.

I'm looking for a constantly growing economic model that is not dependent on population growth, if you have any ideas?
Technological progress can provide a constantly growing economic model that is not dependent on population growth (it also enables population growth).

However, we currently seem to be heading towards a plutocracy / kleptocracy.

 

[sserafim]

Is it the best system? No. Is it perfect? No. Has it worked the best so far in the modern world? Probably. What is the best alternative? Probably some sort of Star Trek-style resource-based economy.

Currency is simply a form of counting. Should a person who works on brains be oayed the same as someone who scrubs toilets? Some would say you get oayed in proportion to the problems you solve. You hand someone a coffee, mininum wage. You colonize Mars, a trillionaire. HOWEVER, I'm NOT arguing that people shouldn't have a good standard of living or be indentured servants or be homeless and all that. But I do think that people who put in extra effort should be rewarded. Does that mean we need a corporate cesspool run by oligarchic-billionaires? NO. But what is the best alternative system CURRENTLY to capitalism? I don't know if I have the answer. Maybe a hybrid of socialism and capitalism? Communism is great on paper but given human nature isn't functional and always leads to dictatorship historically. Has the current system screwed people over? Yes. But what we currently have is not laissez-faire capitalism, it is crony capitalism - the government deems a company is too big to fail, ect. Any system will have corruption. No country is without out it. Some granted, have less than others.
We are currently running a growing welfare state and I do believe we need more engineerings, scientists and entrepreneurs. Government doesn't create jobs, they are bureaucrats. Entrepreneurs create jobs.

Capitalism (in theory) seems like society's way of voting on things they like. They like this brand of cupcakes but not this brand.
It does seem to spur the most innovation.

First of all I think it's within the government's power and within its scope to provide welfare for people. I don't have a problem with that. Well the problem I have with welfare in general is the way that we go about doing it. Because there's this unfortunate tendency of people who don't get welfare to think all the people on welfare are just slackers and they just don't wanna work. And while that's probably true for some of these people and there's always people who take advantage of anything. But the thing is most people don't want to be unemployed, most people don't wanna have to feel like they're dependent on somebody else for their livelihood. And so instead of just handing these people a check which doesn't do anything to move them up in society. We need to provide them with access education, training, better jobs. Money alone doesn't do anything. And so much of that is just waste. And there's no way to regulate what that money is being spent on. I'm for legalizing drugs but I don't think we should be paying for people's drug habits if possible.

In my opinion it's not about reducing wealth inequality through taxes specifically, it's about using the surplus of money from actually taxing the wealthy to enrich our schools and infrastructure which just gives people a better shot at life in general.

This is my thing on healthcare: If someone could put a proposal in front of me that gives us a way to make prices reasonable so that poor people can get fuckin' healthcare without the government having to offer healthcare to them, I'm all for that. If you can find a way to do that without the government having to introduce its own program, you can sell me on that. But that doesn't seem to be going down. The insurance companies are fucking evil. I think that they could find a way to pass new laws to regulate the way that insurance companies are run that would eliminate the need for a government program. Cost is outrageous. And you know that the cost on drugs is way more than it needs to be because now you can get all the generic versions of older drugs, more common drugs for almost nothing. So what's the excuse on all these newer drugs that they come out with? I don't think an insurance company should be able to fucking drop you because you get sick. Whats the point of health insurance if they won't pay for your health. If you get cancer you shouldn't get dropped from your insurance company. If the insurance company doesn't want to deal with the risk of insuring people who might have cancer, I guess they shouldn't be in the insurance business. That's how I feel about that.

I'm looking for a constantly growing economic model that is not dependent on population growth, if you have any ideas?
Technological progress can provide a constantly growing economic model that is not dependent on population growth (it also enables population growth).

However, we currently seem to be heading towards a plutocracy / kleptocracy.

I think that AI could be implemented in a constantly growing economic model that is not dependent on population growth. Instead of the population doing the work, AI would do it instead. I believe that AI will cause unprecedented changes for the economy and society. I think that it could result in a utopia or dystopia. Either way, it will completely change the world. What do you think about AI? Do you think that it poses a danger to society? What are your thoughts on possible futures with AI?

 

[DarkRange55]

Is it the best system? No. Is it perfect? No. Has it worked the best so far in the modern world? Probably. What is the best alternative? Probably some sort of Star Trek-style resource-based economy.

Currency is simply a form of counting. Should a person who works on brains be oayed the same as someone who scrubs toilets? Some would say you get oayed in proportion to the problems you solve. You hand someone a coffee, mininum wage. You colonize Mars, a trillionaire. HOWEVER, I'm NOT arguing that people shouldn't have a good standard of living or be indentured servants or be homeless and all that. But I do think that people who put in extra effort should be rewarded. Does that mean we need a corporate cesspool run by oligarchic-billionaires? NO. But what is the best alternative system CURRENTLY to capitalism? I don't know if I have the answer. Maybe a hybrid of socialism and capitalism? Communism is great on paper but given human nature isn't functional and always leads to dictatorship historically. Has the current system screwed people over? Yes. But what we currently have is not laissez-faire capitalism, it is crony capitalism - the government deems a company is too big to fail, ect. Any system will have corruption. No country is without out it. Some granted, have less than others.
We are currently running a growing welfare state and I do believe we need more engineerings, scientists and entrepreneurs. Government doesn't create jobs, they are bureaucrats. Entrepreneurs create jobs.

Capitalism (in theory) seems like society's way of voting on things they like. They like this brand of cupcakes but not this brand.
It does seem to spur the most innovation.

First of all I think it's within the government's power and within its scope to provide welfare for people. I don't have a problem with that. Well the problem I have with welfare in general is the way that we go about doing it. Because there's this unfortunate tendency of people who don't get welfare to think all the people on welfare are just slackers and they just don't wanna work. And while that's probably true for some of these people and there's always people who take advantage of anything. But the thing is most people don't want to be unemployed, most people don't wanna have to feel like they're dependent on somebody else for their livelihood. And so instead of just handing these people a check which doesn't do anything to move them up in society. We need to provide them with access education, training, better jobs. Money alone doesn't do anything. And so much of that is just waste. And there's no way to regulate what that money is being spent on. I'm for legalizing drugs but I don't think we should be paying for people's drug habits if possible.

In my opinion it's not about reducing wealth inequality through taxes specifically, it's about using the surplus of money from actually taxing the wealthy to enrich our schools and infrastructure which just gives people a better shot at life in general.

This is my thing on healthcare: If someone could put a proposal in front of me that gives us a way to make prices reasonable so that poor people can get fuckin' healthcare without the government having to offer healthcare to them, I'm all for that. If you can find a way to do that without the government having to introduce its own program, you can sell me on that. But that doesn't seem to be going down. The insurance companies are fucking evil. I think that they could find a way to pass new laws to regulate the way that insurance companies are run that would eliminate the need for a government program. Cost is outrageous. And you know that the cost on drugs is way more than it needs to be because now you can get all the generic versions of older drugs, more common drugs for almost nothing. So what's the excuse on all these newer drugs that they come out with? I don't think an insurance company should be able to fucking drop you because you get sick. Whats the point of health insurance if they won't pay for your health. If you get cancer you shouldn't get dropped from your insurance company. If the insurance company doesn't want to deal with the risk of insuring people who might have cancer, I guess they shouldn't be in the insurance business. That's how I feel about that.

I'm looking for a constantly growing economic model that is not dependent on population growth, if you have any ideas?
Technological progress can provide a constantly growing economic model that is not dependent on population growth (it also enables population growth).

However, we currently seem to be heading towards a plutocracy / kleptocracy.

I would also add that capitalism, while flawed, is probably better living conditions than endentured survitude. I know people will say it's the modern equivalent. But we do have social programs (that suck) but we do have something. Some countries do it better than others.
There's a "law" in economics, I can't seem to find the name of it ATM but something like 20% of people in *ANY* system will always be at the bottom and never want to work. There is a photo for the analogy of a teared layer cake for societies. I'm sure it's always built off the backs of others. But even bees have a social hierarchy. Also look at WASPy churches - From a sociological perspective, I suppose any social organization or hierarchy can/is used for social mobility.

 

[sserafim]

I would also add that capitalism, while flawed, is probably better living conditions than endentured survitude. I know people will say it's the modern equivalent. But we do have social programs (that suck) but we do have something. Some countries do it better than others.
There's a "law" in economics, I can't seem to find the name of it ATM but something like 20% of people in *ANY* system will always be at the bottom and never want to work. There is a photo for the analogy of a teared layer cake for societies. I'm sure it's always built off the backs of others. But even bees have a social hierarchy. Also look at WASPy churches - From a sociological perspective, I suppose any social organization or hierarchy can/is used for social mobility.

I guess capitalism is better than indentured servitude. I've seen the tiered layer cake for societies, I think I saw it in history class a long time ago. Why do you think that societies inevitably organize themselves in hierarchies? Why do you think that even bees have a social hierarchy? Is a hierarchy just the natural state of organization for social animals?

 

[DarkRange55]

I guess capitalism is better than indentured servitude. I've seen the tiered layer cake for societies, I think I saw it in history class a long time ago. Why do you think that societies inevitably organize themselves in hierarchies? Why do you think that even bees have a social hierarchy? Is a hierarchy just the natural state of organization for social animals?

I'll try to get back to this one, too, boss

 

[leavingthesoultrap]

There's a problem with free market. The housing market is a prime example. Something as essential as housing should not be uncontrolled. Capitalism is ruthless and creates a lot of suffering. The nordic socialist countries are ranking the highest on the overall happiness scale.

 

[DarkRange55]

There's a problem with free market. The housing market is a prime example. Something as essential as housing should not be uncontrolled. Capitalism is ruthless and creates a lot of suffering. The nordic socialist countries are ranking the highest on the overall happiness scale.

Housing is a complex issue. Japan constantly experiences housing price deflation given the cultural nature of houses being temporary construction because of their vulnerability to natural disasters. Look at Tawain's housing prices. Some of the highest in the world because land is so scare on an island that has become a tech capital. Housing costs in the US have been to due a number of factors: increased building codes have had a huge impact, lack of supply of new houses due to lumber (which was pre-covid you had Canadian wildfires, beetle outbreaks, tariffs, mill curtailments, ect) then during covid it exacerbated the situation because a lot of people were at home, doing home, improvement projects like building decks, which drove up the lumber future prices even more. Then you have a lot of foreign cash buyers trying to get money out of their country and hold it here. Plus you have big investment companies buying up real estate. Land is limited and it's a valuable commodity. And then, because of the increasing cost of construction and materials, it's not very cost-effective for developers to build single-family ranch style starter homes anymore. You also have price elasticity.

I do think we need more long-term housing (not just short-term) for people in need. But part of the issue is all the increased regulation has raised the prices of that a lot. There are more affordable homes in less densely concentrated, less highly-taxed, non-tech hubs (LA, NYC, Seattle, ect). Ala Wisconsin, Ohio, Alabama, ect. Obviously interest rates aren't helping at the moment but thats not help tame inflation.

Again, I don't think we live in a true free-market. We live in an oligarchy that heading towards a plutocracy.

I'm not saying I disagree that it has plenty of issues, my question is, what is the viable suggested alternative? I don't know

 

[kane9191kosugi]

Housing is a complex issue. Japan constantly experiences housing price deflation given the cultural nature of houses being temporary construction because of their vulnerability to natural disasters. Look at Tawain's housing prices. Some of the highest in the world because land is so scare on an island that has become a tech capital. Housing costs in the US have been to due a number of factors: increased building codes have had a huge impact, lack of supply of new houses due to lumber (which was pre-covid you had Canadian wildfires, beetle outbreaks, tariffs, mill curtailments, ect) then during covid it exacerbated the situation because a lot of people were at home, doing home, improvement projects like building decks, which drove up the lumber future prices even more. Then you have a lot of foreign cash buyers trying to get money out of their country and hold it here. Plus you have big investment companies buying up real estate. Land is limited and it's a valuable commodity. And then, because of the increasing cost of construction and materials, it's not very cost-effective for developers to build single-family ranch style starter homes anymore. You also have price elasticity.

I do think we need more long-term housing (not just short-term) for people in need. But part of the issue is all the increased regulation has raised the prices of that a lot. There are more affordable homes in less densely concentrated, less highly-taxed, non-tech hubs (LA, NYC, Seattle, ect). Ala Wisconsin, Ohio, Alabama, ect. Obviously interest rates aren't helping at the moment but thats not help tame inflation.

Again, I don't think we live in a true free-market. We live in an oligarchy that heading towards a plutocracy.

I'm not saying I disagree that it has plenty of issues, my question is, what is the viable suggested alternative? I don't know

Your take on Japan is pretty old as housing has skyrocketed in recent years due to investment. The word "housing bubble" has been a pretty common topic nowadays (and it's not really a "bubble" as there are multiple factors as to why it's likely going to increase from here on).
Also I feel like "foreign cash buyers" are also a thing in Japan (and pretty much every developed nation with large population), especially with the yen being laughably cheap right now. Lots of rich people from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore wants to buy housing in Japan for "safety" reason (with how things are going with China, and how Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine went, not surprised really), while there are also rich Chinese that wants housing in Japan as well due to harsh restriction/sanction from CCP (if Jack Ma got imprisoned, than any rich people inside China aren't safe lol).
The massive inbound tourism (mainly Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, South East Asia, China, …etc.) has also raised the real estate market in general in Japan.

I mean you pointed out "natural disaster", but that's also the same with Taiwan as well (granted Japan is a MUCH larger country in terms of scale but still).

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I believe that life would be similar without capitalism. People tend to say that capitalism is the root of all evil but the truth is that it's human greed that's the root of all evil. Under any system, there will always be people at the top exploiting the people lower down because that's just something that humans want to do

 

[SexyIncél]

Depends. Mad Max eco-fascism is worse than capitalism. Participatory Economics sounds much better. Kings may have been useful too — and around far longer than capitalism; but we're happy to discard them for something better

In my view, there should be no One Great Blueprint. Instead, there should be zones of experimentation, depending on the goals of participants

We can split "capitalism" down into concepts. Like wageslavery, markets, the bureaucratic nation-state that enforces property relations with cops...

We might question the professional propaganda — considering whether markets are inefficient (potentially destroying any environment they operate in), or have antagonistic buyers vs sellers (screwing each other & worrying about getting screwed)

Or asking whether it's actually the dynamic state sector that's responsible for the greatest long-term innovations like the internet, computing, etc. (Funded by the military & so on. Corporations can't do that blue-sky research; instead focusing on shorter term goals — with the exception of government-supported & subsidized monopolies like Bell Labs, which invented the transistor)

 

[DarkRange55]

Your take on Japan is pretty old as housing has skyrocketed in recent years due to investment. The word "housing bubble" has been a pretty common topic nowadays (and it's not really a "bubble" as there are multiple factors as to why it's likely going to increase from here on).
Also I feel like "foreign cash buyers" are also a thing in Japan (and pretty much every developed nation with large population), especially with the yen being laughably cheap right now. Lots of rich people from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore wants to buy housing in Japan for "safety" reason (with how things are going with China, and how Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine went, not surprised really), while there are also rich Chinese that wants housing in Japan as well due to harsh restriction/sanction from CCP (if Jack Ma got imprisoned, than any rich people inside China aren't safe lol).
The massive inbound tourism (mainly Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, South East Asia, China, …etc.) has also raised the real estate market in general in Japan.

I mean you pointed out "natural disaster", but that's also the same with Taiwan as well (granted Japan is a MUCH larger country in terms of scale but still).

My cousin is an PhD Harvard economist and finance professor, he studies this kind of stuff.

Always a cycle -- see Harvard joint center on hiusing reports

So first look up the term "akiya" which is basically signaling royal decline about one and eight houses are empty in these ghost towns in Japan because it's cheaper for the people to basically leave than it is for them to sell it so the banks basically give them away for free this is due to population decline. Again you're trying to compare apples to oranges by saying Tokyo versus the countryside. My argument is that there are still a lot of affordable places to live. If you don't look at highly taxed, densely populated tech hubs as you're only sample.

This is a complicated issue and rates and inflation. Also make a difference. In some places you can get an overestimated sense and appreciation due to higher rates inflation. Japan has an extremely low rate of inflation. With the way that most Japanese houses are simply not built to last for a long time without major maintenance. The materials use include a lot of wooden paper, less stone brick, etc., and you can see why the value of buildings don't appreciate. I am not 100% certain on the historical reasons but I suspect that has to do with the area being disaster prone. If you have lots of damage due to earthquakes, hurricanes and fires because the housing is so close together historically fires are a huge problem and it is often better to have a policy of simply rebuilding. There are very very few buildings in Japan that have lasted more than a few centuries. Even famous Castles temples, etc. have to be rebuilt every so often. By the way, you can't really consider houses an investment in any country unless we have the cash to buy them out right without getting a loan otherwise they are reliability. Real estate land investment on the other hand can be extremely lucrative in Japan. Land values are continuing to rise, especially in places like Tokyo, where the demand is high.
Very complicated and you also have to look at the market structure of banks, relationships with trading companies, housing and market…. ONE of the reasons for the crash many years ago, I have not followed the relationships of housing and market structure and concentration, but I would not be surprised IF the changes have been slow. Go back and dig more into the longer-term consequences and reasons for the collapse of Japanese economy back in 1990s.

Your take on Japan is pretty old as housing has skyrocketed in recent years due to investment. The word "housing bubble" has been a pretty common topic nowadays (and it's not really a "bubble" as there are multiple factors as to why it's likely going to increase from here on).
Also I feel like "foreign cash buyers" are also a thing in Japan (and pretty much every developed nation with large population), especially with the yen being laughably cheap right now. Lots of rich people from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore wants to buy housing in Japan for "safety" reason (with how things are going with China, and how Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine went, not surprised really), while there are also rich Chinese that wants housing in Japan as well due to harsh restriction/sanction from CCP (if Jack Ma got imprisoned, than any rich people inside China aren't safe lol).
The massive inbound tourism (mainly Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, South East Asia, China, …etc.) has also raised the real estate market in general in Japan.

I mean you pointed out "natural disaster", but that's also the same with Taiwan as well (granted Japan is a MUCH larger country in terms of scale but still).

Taiwan is not exactly as prone to the same disasters that Japan is prone to such as earthquakes. I've lived in Taiwan, as well as Macau and South Korea Kore.

Your take on Japan is pretty old as housing has skyrocketed in recent years due to investment. The word "housing bubble" has been a pretty common topic nowadays (and it's not really a "bubble" as there are multiple factors as to why it's likely going to increase from here on).
Also I feel like "foreign cash buyers" are also a thing in Japan (and pretty much every developed nation with large population), especially with the yen being laughably cheap right now. Lots of rich people from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore wants to buy housing in Japan for "safety" reason (with how things are going with China, and how Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine went, not surprised really), while there are also rich Chinese that wants housing in Japan as well due to harsh restriction/sanction from CCP (if Jack Ma got imprisoned, than any rich people inside China aren't safe lol).
The massive inbound tourism (mainly Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, South East Asia, China, …etc.) has also raised the real estate market in general in Japan.

I mean you pointed out "natural disaster", but that's also the same with Taiwan as well (granted Japan is a MUCH larger country in terms of scale but still).

If by safety, you simply mean it's under the US military umbrella… however, Japan has remained the third largest economy in the world and up until 2010 was the second largest, and they still have a reserve currency.

Your take on Japan is pretty old as housing has skyrocketed in recent years due to investment. The word "housing bubble" has been a pretty common topic nowadays (and it's not really a "bubble" as there are multiple factors as to why it's likely going to increase from here on).
Also I feel like "foreign cash buyers" are also a thing in Japan (and pretty much every developed nation with large population), especially with the yen being laughably cheap right now. Lots of rich people from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore wants to buy housing in Japan for "safety" reason (with how things are going with China, and how Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine went, not surprised really), while there are also rich Chinese that wants housing in Japan as well due to harsh restriction/sanction from CCP (if Jack Ma got imprisoned, than any rich people inside China aren't safe lol).
The massive inbound tourism (mainly Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, South East Asia, China, …etc.) has also raised the real estate market in general in Japan.

I mean you pointed out "natural disaster", but that's also the same with Taiwan as well (granted Japan is a MUCH larger country in terms of scale but still).

The Japanese Housing Enigma: Why Homes in Japan Depreciate Like Cars ð ð

Introduction Hey, corporate warriors! ð Ever wondered why Japan has millions of abandoned homes that are practically free? Let's dive into the fascinating dynamics of the Japanese housing market and what sets it apart from the rest of the world. The Concept of Housing: A Consumer Good, Not an Inves

www.linkedin.com

My cousin is an PhD Harvard economist and finance professor, he studies this kind of stuff.

Always a cycle -- see Harvard joint center on hiusing reports

So first look up the term "akiya" which is basically signaling royal decline about one and eight houses are empty in these ghost towns in Japan because it's cheaper for the people to basically leave than it is for them to sell it so the banks basically give them away for free this is due to population decline. Again you're trying to compare apples to oranges by saying Tokyo versus the countryside. My argument is that there are still a lot of affordable places to live. If you don't look at highly taxed, densely populated tech hubs as you're only sample.

This is a complicated issue and rates and inflation. Also make a difference. In some places you can get an overestimated sense and appreciation due to higher rates inflation. Japan has an extremely low rate of inflation. With the way that most Japanese houses are simply not built to last for a long time without major maintenance. The materials use include a lot of wooden paper, less stone brick, etc., and you can see why the value of buildings don't appreciate. I am not 100% certain on the historical reasons but I suspect that has to do with the area being disaster prone. If you have lots of damage due to earthquakes, hurricanes and fires because the housing is so close together historically fires are a huge problem and it is often better to have a policy of simply rebuilding. There are very very few buildings in Japan that have lasted more than a few centuries. Even famous Castles temples, etc. have to be rebuilt every so often. By the way, you can't really consider houses an investment in any country unless we have the cash to buy them out right without getting a loan otherwise they are reliability. Real estate land investment on the other hand can be extremely lucrative in Japan. Land values are continuing to rise, especially in places like Tokyo, where the demand is high.
Very complicated and you also have to look at the market structure of banks, relationships with trading companies, housing and market…. ONE of the reasons for the crash many years ago, I have not followed the relationships of housing and market structure and concentration, but I would not be surprised IF the changes have been slow. Go back and dig more into the longer-term consequences and reasons for the collapse of Japanese economy back in 1990s.

Taiwan is not exactly as prone to the same disasters that Japan is prone to such as earthquakes. I've lived in Taiwan, as well as Macau and South Korea Kore.

If by safety, you simply mean it's under the US military umbrella… however, Japan has remained the third largest economy in the world and up until 2010 was the second largest, and they still have a reserve currency.

The Japanese Housing Enigma: Why Homes in Japan Depreciate Like Cars ð ð

Introduction Hey, corporate warriors! ð Ever wondered why Japan has millions of abandoned homes that are practically free? Let's dive into the fascinating dynamics of the Japanese housing market and what sets it apart from the rest of the world. The Concept of Housing: A Consumer Good, Not an Inves

www.linkedin.com

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

My cousin is an PhD Harvard economist and finance professor, he studies this kind of stuff.

Always a cycle -- see Harvard joint center on hiusing reports

So first look up the term "akiya" which is basically signaling royal decline about one and eight houses are empty in these ghost towns in Japan because it's cheaper for the people to basically leave than it is for them to sell it so the banks basically give them away for free this is due to population decline. Again you're trying to compare apples to oranges by saying Tokyo versus the countryside. My argument is that there are still a lot of affordable places to live. If you don't look at highly taxed, densely populated tech hubs as you're only sample.

This is a complicated issue and rates and inflation. Also make a difference. In some places you can get an overestimated sense and appreciation due to higher rates inflation. Japan has an extremely low rate of inflation. With the way that most Japanese houses are simply not built to last for a long time without major maintenance. The materials use include a lot of wooden paper, less stone brick, etc., and you can see why the value of buildings don't appreciate. I am not 100% certain on the historical reasons but I suspect that has to do with the area being disaster prone. If you have lots of damage due to earthquakes, hurricanes and fires because the housing is so close together historically fires are a huge problem and it is often better to have a policy of simply rebuilding. There are very very few buildings in Japan that have lasted more than a few centuries. Even famous Castles temples, etc. have to be rebuilt every so often. By the way, you can't really consider houses an investment in any country unless we have the cash to buy them out right without getting a loan otherwise they are reliability. Real estate land investment on the other hand can be extremely lucrative in Japan. Land values are continuing to rise, especially in places like Tokyo, where the demand is high.
Very complicated and you also have to look at the market structure of banks, relationships with trading companies, housing and market…. ONE of the reasons for the crash many years ago, I have not followed the relationships of housing and market structure and concentration, but I would not be surprised IF the changes have been slow. Go back and dig more into the longer-term consequences and reasons for the collapse of Japanese economy back in 1990s.

Taiwan is not exactly as prone to the same disasters that Japan is prone to such as earthquakes. I've lived in Taiwan, as well as Macau and South Korea Kore.

If by safety, you simply mean it's under the US military umbrella… however, Japan has remained the third largest economy in the world and up until 2010 was the second largest, and they still have a reserve currency.

The Japanese Housing Enigma: Why Homes in Japan Depreciate Like Cars ð ð

Introduction Hey, corporate warriors! ð Ever wondered why Japan has millions of abandoned homes that are practically free? Let's dive into the fascinating dynamics of the Japanese housing market and what sets it apart from the rest of the world. The Concept of Housing: A Consumer Good, Not an Inves

www.linkedin.com

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

Does Japanese Real Estate Depreciate in Value?

There are some parts of Japanese real estate that are likely to decrease in value and others that are likely to increase in value.

housingjapan.com

 

[kane9191kosugi]

My cousin is an PhD Harvard economist and finance professor, he studies this kind of stuff.

Always a cycle -- see Harvard joint center on hiusing reports

So first look up the term "akiya" which is basically signaling royal decline about one and eight houses are empty in these ghost towns in Japan because it's cheaper for the people to basically leave than it is for them to sell it so the banks basically give them away for free this is due to population decline. Again you're trying to compare apples to oranges by saying Tokyo versus the countryside. My argument is that there are still a lot of affordable places to live. If you don't look at highly taxed, densely populated tech hubs as you're only sample.

This is a complicated issue and rates and inflation. Also make a difference. In some places you can get an overestimated sense and appreciation due to higher rates inflation. Japan has an extremely low rate of inflation. With the way that most Japanese houses are simply not built to last for a long time without major maintenance. The materials use include a lot of wooden paper, less stone brick, etc., and you can see why the value of buildings don't appreciate. I am not 100% certain on the historical reasons but I suspect that has to do with the area being disaster prone. If you have lots of damage due to earthquakes, hurricanes and fires because the housing is so close together historically fires are a huge problem and it is often better to have a policy of simply rebuilding. There are very very few buildings in Japan that have lasted more than a few centuries. Even famous Castles temples, etc. have to be rebuilt every so often. By the way, you can't really consider houses an investment in any country unless we have the cash to buy them out right without getting a loan otherwise they are reliability. Real estate land investment on the other hand can be extremely lucrative in Japan. Land values are continuing to rise, especially in places like Tokyo, where the demand is high.
Very complicated and you also have to look at the market structure of banks, relationships with trading companies, housing and market…. ONE of the reasons for the crash many years ago, I have not followed the relationships of housing and market structure and concentration, but I would not be surprised IF the changes have been slow. Go back and dig more into the longer-term consequences and reasons for the collapse of Japanese economy back in 1990s.

Taiwan is not exactly as prone to the same disasters that Japan is prone to such as earthquakes. I've lived in Taiwan, as well as Macau and South Korea Kore.

If by safety, you simply mean it's under the US military umbrella… however, Japan has remained the third largest economy in the world and up until 2010 was the second largest, and they still have a reserve currency.

The Japanese Housing Enigma: Why Homes in Japan Depreciate Like Cars ð ð

Introduction Hey, corporate warriors! ð Ever wondered why Japan has millions of abandoned homes that are practically free? Let's dive into the fascinating dynamics of the Japanese housing market and what sets it apart from the rest of the world. The Concept of Housing: A Consumer Good, Not an Inves

www.linkedin.com

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

Does Japanese Real Estate Depreciate in Value?

There are some parts of Japanese real estate that are likely to decrease in value and others that are likely to increase in value.

housingjapan.com

Again, most of your references are outdated and are mainly based on "stereotypes" over the past decades lol.
You can put many wiki's and sources all you want to but your points are mostly based on Japan's housing in the 80's-90's era, which has changed DRASTICALLY over the past few years.
Also sorry if I sound confrontational but I don't care about your "cousin's Harvard PhD" lol. That doesn't make any of your points valid.

Firstly, if you have lived in Japan (which I currently do because I'm Japanese), "housing bubble" has been one of the hottest topic in Japan over the past few years. There is a reason why not only Japanese but rich foreigners as well as foreign real estate companies are investing on housing in Japan right now.
Obviously there is a fact that Japan's yen is dirt cheap right now, but that's not only it. The inbound tourism industry in Japan is expected to be one of the largest in the world, so the housing market isn't exactly a "bubble" (although that's what the media in Japan wants to call it).
Also there is a fact that rich people from Taiwan/Hong Kong/Macao/Singapore wants to have housing in Japan for "safety" reasons due to the recent rocky international situation in the far east with China (Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine situation has made a lot of people worried), while rich Chinese from mainland wants housing in Japan as well due to CCP ramping up their sanctions and restrictions since the Xi administration. This has boosted the prices in housing in general.

Secondly, You bring up "akiya" situation, which definitely exists (and it will continue to be that way due to the aging population likely dying off in the next couple of decades), but even the "countryside" has shown huge increase in housing in recent years. I'm not just talking about huge cities like Tokyo, Osaka, …etc. lol.
If you're talking about "marginal village (depopulated village)" or something similar to that, then sure it's dirt cheap, wooden made, with very little inflation having any effect (because nobody lives there and there is literally zero infrastructure). But that's nitpicking the most extreme circumstance.

Thirdly, the economic collapse had more to do with US (mainly) imposing the Plaza Accord to rapidly increase the yen value to pressure Japan's economy at the time (which doesn't really get talked about in the west for some reason lol). Banking and Housing situations are all sub-effect of that (not saying those two weren't problematic prior to that but Plaza Accord was the thing which triggered it).

Fourthly, while natural disasters are definitely rampant in Japan, and wooden housing are still a thing as well, you make it sound like "Japanese construction companies are building housing in Japan with cheap resources because they are bound to get destroyed by natural disasters", which just isn't the case lol.
This years earthquake definitely did way more damage than people expected initially, but it had a lot to do with the fire, which spread into wide region due to multiple unfortunate factors (many people taking days off due to New Years, roads being destroyed which made saving lives difficult, …etc.). And most of the deaths were in the countryside where Kanazawa itself had little casualties (at least compared to Noto). Even the casualties in 3/11 earthquake had more to do with Tsunami than the actual earthquake itself.

Wow that was a long post lol. Hopefully this helped some misunderstanding.

 

[DarkRange55]

Again, most of your references are outdated and are mainly based on "stereotypes" over the past decades lol.
You can put many wiki's and sources all you want to but your points are mostly based on Japan's housing in the 80's-90's era, which has changed DRASTICALLY over the past few years.
Also sorry if I sound confrontational but I don't care about your "cousin's Harvard PhD" lol. That doesn't make any of your points valid.

Firstly, if you have lived in Japan (which I currently do because I'm Japanese), "housing bubble" has been one of the hottest topic in Japan over the past few years. There is a reason why not only Japanese but rich foreigners as well as foreign real estate companies are investing on housing in Japan right now.
Obviously there is a fact that Japan's yen is dirt cheap right now, but that's not only it. The inbound tourism industry in Japan is expected to be one of the largest in the world, so the housing market isn't exactly a "bubble" (although that's what the media in Japan wants to call it).
Also there is a fact that rich people from Taiwan/Hong Kong/Macao/Singapore wants to have housing in Japan for "safety" reasons due to the recent rocky international situation in the far east with China (Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine situation has made a lot of people worried), while rich Chinese from mainland wants housing in Japan as well due to CCP ramping up their sanctions and restrictions since the Xi administration. This has boosted the prices in housing in general.

Secondly, You bring up "akiya" situation, which definitely exists (and it will continue to be that way due to the aging population likely dying off in the next couple of decades), but even the "countryside" has shown huge increase in housing in recent years. I'm not just talking about huge cities like Tokyo, Osaka, …etc. lol.
If you're talking about "marginal village (depopulated village)" or something similar to that, then sure it's dirt cheap, wooden made, with very little inflation having any effect (because nobody lives there and there is literally zero infrastructure). But that's nitpicking the most extreme circumstance.

Thirdly, the economic collapse had more to do with US (mainly) imposing the Plaza Accord to rapidly increase the yen value to pressure Japan's economy at the time (which doesn't really get talked about in the west for some reason lol). Banking and Housing situations are all sub-effect of that (not saying those two weren't problematic prior to that but Plaza Accord was the thing which triggered it).

Fourthly, while natural disasters are definitely rampant in Japan, and wooden housing are still a thing as well, you make it sound like "Japanese construction companies are building housing in Japan with cheap resources because they are bound to get destroyed by natural disasters", which just isn't the case lol.
This years earthquake definitely did way more damage than people expected initially, but it had a lot to do with the fire, which spread into wide region due to multiple unfortunate factors (many people taking days off due to New Years, roads being destroyed which made saving lives difficult, …etc.). And most of the deaths were in the countryside where Kanazawa itself had little casualties (at least compared to Noto). Even the casualties in 3/11 earthquake had more to do with Tsunami than the actual earthquake itself.

Wow that was a long post lol. Hopefully this helped some misunderstanding.

1. I agree wirh you on the Plaza Accords
2. I will need to do some research on the topic as I mentioned above that I have not followed this specific market. I've worked in commcerial real estate broker, as a commercial real estate imvesment analyst and as a commcerial building engineer but that has been in the US. Very different market. I do realize that the Jaoanese real estate market as a whole is very complex and yes hvaing mived in Taiwan, a lot of Chinese and Taiwanese money is moving in. My point was really just not all real estate always increases constantly and you can find some very cheap houses. And historically (not presently) Japan had built a lot cheap houses (in the countryside). So thank you for the clarification
3. My other point is just that real estate is a complex, non-linear subject

Again, most of your references are outdated and are mainly based on "stereotypes" over the past decades lol.
You can put many wiki's and sources all you want to but your points are mostly based on Japan's housing in the 80's-90's era, which has changed DRASTICALLY over the past few years.
Also sorry if I sound confrontational but I don't care about your "cousin's Harvard PhD" lol. That doesn't make any of your points valid.

Firstly, if you have lived in Japan (which I currently do because I'm Japanese), "housing bubble" has been one of the hottest topic in Japan over the past few years. There is a reason why not only Japanese but rich foreigners as well as foreign real estate companies are investing on housing in Japan right now.
Obviously there is a fact that Japan's yen is dirt cheap right now, but that's not only it. The inbound tourism industry in Japan is expected to be one of the largest in the world, so the housing market isn't exactly a "bubble" (although that's what the media in Japan wants to call it).
Also there is a fact that rich people from Taiwan/Hong Kong/Macao/Singapore wants to have housing in Japan for "safety" reasons due to the recent rocky international situation in the far east with China (Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine situation has made a lot of people worried), while rich Chinese from mainland wants housing in Japan as well due to CCP ramping up their sanctions and restrictions since the Xi administration. This has boosted the prices in housing in general.

Secondly, You bring up "akiya" situation, which definitely exists (and it will continue to be that way due to the aging population likely dying off in the next couple of decades), but even the "countryside" has shown huge increase in housing in recent years. I'm not just talking about huge cities like Tokyo, Osaka, …etc. lol.
If you're talking about "marginal village (depopulated village)" or something similar to that, then sure it's dirt cheap, wooden made, with very little inflation having any effect (because nobody lives there and there is literally zero infrastructure). But that's nitpicking the most extreme circumstance.

Thirdly, the economic collapse had more to do with US (mainly) imposing the Plaza Accord to rapidly increase the yen value to pressure Japan's economy at the time (which doesn't really get talked about in the west for some reason lol). Banking and Housing situations are all sub-effect of that (not saying those two weren't problematic prior to that but Plaza Accord was the thing which triggered it).

Fourthly, while natural disasters are definitely rampant in Japan, and wooden housing are still a thing as well, you make it sound like "Japanese construction companies are building housing in Japan with cheap resources because they are bound to get destroyed by natural disasters", which just isn't the case lol.
This years earthquake definitely did way more damage than people expected initially, but it had a lot to do with the fire, which spread into wide region due to multiple unfortunate factors (many people taking days off due to New Years, roads being destroyed which made saving lives difficult, …etc.). And most of the deaths were in the countryside where Kanazawa itself had little casualties (at least compared to Noto). Even the casualties in 3/11 earthquake had more to do with Tsunami than the actual earthquake itself.

Wow that was a long post lol. Hopefully this helped some misunderstanding.

Is it mostly in the big cities like Tokyo and Osaka?
I didn't realize they had achieved very low inflation instead of deflation. Looks like it was swings in the yen and deflation was old. I know they experimented with negative interest rates at one point.

 

[kane9191kosugi]

1. I agree wirh you on the Plaza Accords
2. I will need to do some research on the topic as I mentioned above that I have not followed this specific market. I've worked in commcerial real estate broker, as a commercial real estate imvesment analyst and as a commcerial building engineer but that has been in the US. Very different market. I do realize that the Jaoanese real estate market as a whole is very complex and yes hvaing mived in Taiwan, a lot of Chinese and Taiwanese money is moving in. My point was really just not all real estate always increases constantly and you can find some very cheap houses. And historically (not presently) Japan had built a lot cheap houses (in the countryside). So thank you for the clarification
3. My other point is just that real estate is a complex, non-linear subject

Is it mostly in the big cities like Tokyo and Osaka?
I didn't realize they had achieved very low inflation instead of deflation. Looks like it was swings in the yen and deflation was old. I know they experimented with negative interest rates at one point.

Sorry what I meant was that it's not just the big cities (like Tokyo, Osaka, …etc.) that the prices have spiked over the years, the prices in countryside has also gone up due to multiple factors.

 

[DarkRange55]

Sorry what I meant was that it's not just the big cities (like Tokyo, Osaka, …etc.) that the prices have spiked over the years, the prices in countryside has also gone up due to multiple factors.

Ahh, okay! So does this sound accurate, then?

People keep moving to Tokyo (and other major urban areas) from both foreign countries(Japan's population now has 2.83 million foreigners) and the countryside or suburban areas.Tokyo has the headquarters of the most Fortune 500 companies of any megalopolis in the world except for New York and has the largest GDP of any megalopolis. Many Chinese are taking advantage of the fact that Japan has no restrictions on buying land or buildings. They are buying condos. In Japan, you can own both land and buildings with no restriction, even as a foreigner. You don't even have to live in Japan, and can do it from overseas.

Much, much more foreign tourism than before. The tourists stay in hotels, and hotels need real estate.

Japanese people do not have many choices for high-yield investments within their own country and real estate makes the most sense. Banks yield close to 0% interest. Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) yield the same. Because Japanese real estate is appealing for investment purposes, many people invest in it and it drives the prices higher.

Many foreign investors are interested in yen-denominated assets (cash, real estate, etc.) PRECISELY BECAUSE the yen's inflation rate is much lower than most other currencies. It is seen as a safe haven currency. If you keep your money in dollars, it will lose ~2% of its value every year. With yen, just over 0% loss. The same goes for land. If you invest in land in Tokyo, although the land will only appreciate slowly in value, there will be almost no inflation to erode the gains.

People are scooping up real estate because it can help them avoid taxes legally. Buying real estate can greatly reduce one's inheritance tax, gift tax, etc. One of the key parts of Japanese real estate is the depreciation deduction system.

Please correct / add as necessary, thank you!

 

[kane9191kosugi]

Ahh, okay! So does this sound accurate, then?

People keep moving to Tokyo (and other major urban areas) from both foreign countries(Japan's population now has 2.83 million foreigners) and the countryside or suburban areas.Tokyo has the headquarters of the most Fortune 500 companies of any megalopolis in the world except for New York and has the largest GDP of any megalopolis. Many Chinese are taking advantage of the fact that Japan has no restrictions on buying land or buildings. They are buying condos. In Japan, you can own both land and buildings with no restriction, even as a foreigner. You don't even have to live in Japan, and can do it from overseas.

Much, much more foreign tourism than before. The tourists stay in hotels, and hotels need real estate.

Japanese people do not have many choices for high-yield investments within their own country and real estate makes the most sense. Banks yield close to 0% interest. Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) yield the same. Because Japanese real estate is appealing for investment purposes, many people invest in it and it drives the prices higher.

Many foreign investors are interested in yen-denominated assets (cash, real estate, etc.) PRECISELY BECAUSE the yen's inflation rate is much lower than most other currencies. It is seen as a safe haven currency. If you keep your money in dollars, it will lose ~2% of its value every year. With yen, just over 0% loss. The same goes for land. If you invest in land in Tokyo, although the land will only appreciate slowly in value, there will be almost no inflation to erode the gains.

People are scooping up real estate because it can help them avoid taxes legally. Buying real estate can greatly reduce one's inheritance tax, gift tax, etc. One of the key parts of Japanese real estate is the depreciation deduction system.

Please correct / add as necessary, thank you!

Your first point is correct. But it's also important to note that Chinese who bought lands or buildings in Japan still has to pay taxes/fees even if they aren't living in Japan. This is also obvious with any country but just because you "buy" or "own" the land or building in a foreign country, it's still bounded by that countries law.

Your 2nd and 3rd point are correct as well. As for your 3rd point, there are rumors right now that banks in Japan may increase the interest rate so the situation may change in the near future.

Your 4th point is also correct…I think. Which is why Japan's stock market is at a pace to go well beyond the bubble economy during the 80's. The stocks itself have skyrocketed because both domestic and foreign investors are buying it due to the yen being super cheap right now, so this might change depending on how the yen value changes in the future. As for real estate, I think it will continue to increase regardless of how the yen value changes because the government is pushing heavily on inbound tourism, and with aging population in wide spread smaller areas, the cities and towns are going to be more compacted in the future. Also there are much more immigrants coming to Japan, and that trend is likely going to increase for the foreseeable future.

Your 5th point is also correct. Although you still have to pay certain taxes when owning lands or buildings, there are other legal methods to cut taxes. So I guess it's a matter of pros/cons, depending on your financial situation.

Hope it helps!

 

[DarkRange55]

Your first point is correct. But it's also important to note that Chinese who bought lands or buildings in Japan still has to pay taxes/fees even if they aren't living in Japan. This is also obvious with any country but just because you "buy" or "own" the land or building in a foreign country, it's still bounded by that countries law.

Your 2nd and 3rd point are correct as well. As for your 3rd point, there are rumors right now that banks in Japan may increase the interest rate so the situation may change in the near future.

Your 4th point is also correct…I think. Which is why Japan's stock market is at a pace to go well beyond the bubble economy during the 80's. The stocks itself have skyrocketed because both domestic and foreign investors are buying it due to the yen being super cheap right now, so this might change depending on how the yen value changes in the future. As for real estate, I think it will continue to increase regardless of how the yen value changes because the government is pushing heavily on inbound tourism, and with aging population in wide spread smaller areas, the cities and towns are going to be more compacted in the future. Also there are much more immigrants coming to Japan, and that trend is likely going to increase for the foreseeable future.

Your 5th point is also correct. Although you still have to pay certain taxes when owning lands or buildings, there are other legal methods to cut taxes. So I guess it's a matter of pros/cons, depending on your financial situation.

Hope it helps!

Much obliged!

 

[Shrike]

I think capitalism is a red herring. It's a system and it has systemic effects but in itself it's borne out of a greater system, and the greater system is what we all should be focusing on. I imagine the world without capitalism would just be the world with feudalism or what not. Rotate it on its head all you want. There's a range of problems that happens on repeat that explains why we never get our gay luxury space communism.

One is resources and wars. Even if you build yourself an idyllic society another society may show up with weapons and destroy it. That's all that "colonialism" that everyone's so up in arms about is. A lot of negative tendencies, then, arise from both selection for societies that survive wars and from being forced into this mindset. It gets priority over other things. And if your society is out of food and something near you has food, all bets are off. You'll generally observe societies that have to think about war a lot get warped a certain kind of way.

Another is that people are not smart. And I don't mean IQ here, more something like the ever elusive "rationality". Peoples' actions are not optimized (biologically, I presume) for reason, they're optimized for some mix of conformism, seeking good vibes, and short term gain, especially along biological urges. Tribalism abounds. Seeking truth, reducing biases, few people value that. It's sufficiently soupy that people end up entirely disconnected from any sort of logic. For the most part, for most people, nobody's home. This is of course ripe for manipulation by various actors that are a little bit more aware.

And finally, we're animals. We pretend we're stewards, but we refuse to do the work of stewards. Like other animals, at a time, we might have had an apex predator, or maybe we were limited by disease, maybe we just couldn't make enough food, who knows. But without that, we have no ability to stop. Everyone feels entitled to never stop. Everything nearby gets consumed. Land gets acquired. Children are made, many children are made. More land is acquired. More is consumed. More children are made. All over fished, fuel consumed, pretty much every speck of livable land has someone on it or is owned by someone. We have a gigantic planet and we have filled it all up, we have used it all up. If we get another planet, we'll do the same to it. You know we will. That foresight of an inevitability means a choice was not made, and those who act but make no choices are animals.

People sometimes get pretty ideas about some ancient societies living in harmony with nature but they don't tend to think that said "harmony" involves a chunk of your women regularly dying in childbirth, your best friend getting eaten by a lion, or losing half the children regularly to some disease. Or famines. Even in that, everything is always awful because we're always just on the edge of using slightly too many resources to promote nasty competition for it. The removal of that balancing factor by means of medicine and technology demands adding it back in by some other means, of all action becoming a concrete, cognizant choice in which we create our own harmony through means less brutal. But we're unable to do that. At best, harmony has to be forced upon is, by something else. Until this is something we can do ourselves, we will have no means to also run our societies ourselves, and that is precisely what a gay space communism requires: absolute responsibility.

 

[Homo erectus]

Is usury a major problem and cause of suffering, for it allows capitalists to profit purely from their capital? Systems rejecting usury are probably not that far away, both in distance and in time.

 

[DarkRange55]

Is usury a major problem and cause of suffering, for it allows capitalists to profit purely from their capital? Systems rejecting usury are probably not that far away, both in distance and in time.

I'll have to look into this more… but recently we had the lowest interest rates in 5,000 years. Some countries experimented with negative interest rates.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist. My experience and focus is more equities (stocks), casinos, hospitality, American real estate.

Interest rates haven't been this low in 5,000 years

How is this for a historical comparison -- interest rates are at a 5,000-year low.

www.marketwatch.com

The History of Interest Rates Over 670 Years

Interest rates sit near generational lows — is this the new normal, or has it been the trend all along? We show a history of interest rates in this graphic.

www.visualcapitalist.com

Back to Basics: What Are Negative Interest Rates? – IMF F&D

In this explainer, the IMF discusses how interest rates can be negative, and why central banks are starting to experiment with negative interest rates to stimulate their countries’ economies.

www.imf.org

The 5 Countries With the Lowest Interest Rates

Interest rates in many nations are at record low levels. We look at the five nations with the lowest rates.

www.investopedia.com

 

[DarkRange55]

I think capitalism is a red herring. It's a system and it has systemic effects but in itself it's borne out of a greater system, and the greater system is what we all should be focusing on. I imagine the world without capitalism would just be the world with feudalism or what not. Rotate it on its head all you want. There's a range of problems that happens on repeat that explains why we never get our gay luxury space communism.

One is resources and wars. Even if you build yourself an idyllic society another society may show up with weapons and destroy it. That's all that "colonialism" that everyone's so up in arms about is. A lot of negative tendencies, then, arise from both selection for societies that survive wars and from being forced into this mindset. It gets priority over other things. And if your society is out of food and something near you has food, all bets are off. You'll generally observe societies that have to think about war a lot get warped a certain kind of way.

Another is that people are not smart. And I don't mean IQ here, more something like the ever elusive "rationality". Peoples' actions are not optimized (biologically, I presume) for reason, they're optimized for some mix of conformism, seeking good vibes, and short term gain, especially along biological urges. Tribalism abounds. Seeking truth, reducing biases, few people value that. It's sufficiently soupy that people end up entirely disconnected from any sort of logic. For the most part, for most people, nobody's home. This is of course ripe for manipulation by various actors that are a little bit more aware.

And finally, we're animals. We pretend we're stewards, but we refuse to do the work of stewards. Like other animals, at a time, we might have had an apex predator, or maybe we were limited by disease, maybe we just couldn't make enough food, who knows. But without that, we have no ability to stop. Everyone feels entitled to never stop. Everything nearby gets consumed. Land gets acquired. Children are made, many children are made. More land is acquired. More is consumed. More children are made. All over fished, fuel consumed, pretty much every speck of livable land has someone on it or is owned by someone. We have a gigantic planet and we have filled it all up, we have used it all up. If we get another planet, we'll do the same to it. You know we will. That foresight of an inevitability means a choice was not made, and those who act but make no choices are animals.

People sometimes get pretty ideas about some ancient societies living in harmony with nature but they don't tend to think that said "harmony" involves a chunk of your women regularly dying in childbirth, your best friend getting eaten by a lion, or losing half the children regularly to some disease. Or famines. Even in that, everything is always awful because we're always just on the edge of using slightly too many resources to promote nasty competition for it. The removal of that balancing factor by means of medicine and technology demands adding it back in by some other means, of all action becoming a concrete, cognizant choice in which we create our own harmony through means less brutal. But we're unable to do that. At best, harmony has to be forced upon is, by something else. Until this is something we can do ourselves, we will have no means to also run our societies ourselves, and that is precisely what a gay space communism requires: absolute responsibility.

Not wrong about the past, but many current societies have dropped their birth rates, some below the point of sustainability, so not necessarily correct about the future.

What are "our luxury space communism" and "gay space communism"?

 

[WhenTheyCry]

Despite our homelessness rates, prison population percentage, police brutality, inflation, bankrupting healthcare, lack of workers' rights, mental illness rates, greedy and oppressive employers... we are still better than other countries. Other people in foreign countries have it worse. You should feel blessed to live in Capitalist America.