(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
12.000 Norwegian students stand without housing at the start of their studies, 100.000 stands in housing queue in Copenhagen, and George Bush nationalizes banks to save them from the housing crisis, these are the contours of the market liberalism's fallacy. How about thinking new?
Norway has one of Europe's most liberalized housing markets and here the class distinctions are clearly expressed. While some have enough money to make a buyout and drive home prices to ever-new heights, the majority must suffer from rising prices, increased uncertainty, and the danger of the rapidly growing bubble bursting. The bills are eased over to those with so low incomes that they are denied loans to buy anything at the soaring prices, and to young settlers struggling with increased interest rates, and may be forced to sell at a loss and turn into debt slaves. The liberalization has made the housing market a distribution mechanism that annually transfers billions from the working class to those who have been able to invest in more apartments than they themselves need.
When market solutions do not work, and on the contrary create crises, uncertainty and catch people in a rental market where much of their income goes straight into the pockets of home sharks, then it is time to launch other solutions.
Many measures can be implemented. One start is to build more student housing. Together with the student organizations, the Norwegian Student Union and the Student Union, Socialist Youth this autumn has demanded 1000 new student housing in next year's state budget. In the long term, we want a major investment in student housing, where 10.000 new homes can give the student associations market power to drive down prices in the rental market. It benefits everyone who rents a home. Strengthening student partnerships means that the students themselves must decide on their own living situation, since the social partnerships are subject to student democratic governance. But a democratization of the rental market requires several measures. The municipalities should also, to a much greater extent than today, own homes that are leased to groups without special needs. Increased public ownership can be achieved through construction, ordinary purchases and expropriation.
It is fundamentally unfair that it is the richest, who can speculate in the housing market, that will be left with the profits as the market price comes more and more out of step with the actual cost of renting a home. A wild but correct thought would be to transfer all rental housing to the municipalities or other forms of non-commercial ownership, subject to democratic control. Exceptions could apply to the rental of socket apartments, attics, or other parts of their own dwelling. In fact, one can put an end to the fact that someone owns more housing than they can populate themselves and utilize those who do not have the opportunity to own their own home. It will also solve the problems related to housing speculation, bubbles bursting and banks going backwards. It sounds scary in liberalist ears, but crisis, homelessness and debt slavery don't sound much better.
We need politicians who take people's problems seriously. Which shows power and shows that politics is not about changing names in public companies. Politics is about the big questions. About satisfying basic needs, such as the need for a place to live, about redistribution and about class struggle.
In Norway, everything has been arranged to create winners and losers in the housing market. Winners are created when there are no limits to how many buildings a single person can occupy. Liberalization means that Olav Thon will be able to buy up such a large proportion of office buildings in downtown Oslo that he can set the price himself. It is the right-hand side's freedom. That's what Olav Thon is earning. While everyone else who is looking for an office space in downtown Oslo loses.
For me, the freedom to meet their basic needs, like the need for a place to live. Equality is about having everyone meet that need. Regardless of whether you are single or cohabiting, have children or not, have a job, are in education or are disabled. Socialism is about doing something about it.
