shelter

to my mind, of the basic needs i listed as being guaranteed to all citizens, shelter poses the largest conceptual problem due to the variables implicit in the provision of the need.  in a capitalist system, we have rentals, mortgaged, owned, big, small, apartments, big gardens, good suburbs, bad suburbs, quality of construction, and more.  what standard, and how, would the government/system (or an agent of the government) provide this basic need to the citizen?

the logic i have used in the provision of food and other needs is the minimum amount required to maintain good health is provided for free.  i would suggest this be based on the number of calories, and i would also restrict it to common foods (ie citizens couldn't use their minimum guaranteed calories to eat caviar, for example).  anything above the minimum calories, and other luxuries like coffee, alcohol, caviar, cake, would be paid for by spending the hours they earn working at their qualifying job (they need to work minimum hours to qualify for basic needs covered).

consistent with the food, i am thinking a minimum area per person be included in the guaranteed minimum.  any additional area needs to be paid for with hours.  the quality would need to be fit for the purpose, adequate, but doesn't need to be top quality with all the mod cons.  in addition, i would suggest that the minimum provided be based on the price of the worst suburb in the vicinity.  therefore those that don't want to live in the worst suburb, want more area, want higher quality, want a garden etc, would be free to select shelter more in line with the preferences, price set by the free market forces.  they would then be rebated back the cost of the minimum area in the worst suburb in close proximity.

this seems logically rigorous, in that the basic needs are covered, but the citizens have the freedom to choose in line with their preferences but must pay to do so.  but who would own the property?

in previous posts, i have ranted about how hoarding money is effectively stealing food from the mouth of a starving baby (nb, i am currently stealing food from starving babies).  the only moral justification available is that as currently our future needs are not guaranteed, we need to be able save (hoard) resources to provide for those future needs for ourselves and our family.

in many parts of the capitalist world, the family home is the biggest investment they have.  but effectively, they have this investment due to a combination of being born in a capitalist affluent society, perhaps having affluent parents, perhaps working in a well-paid trade or job, maybe due to the skilful trading of resources / investments on the open market.  often being prudent and responsible as well.  however, to be logically consistent, hoarding is hoarding.  the logical consequences of hoarding are that those that prove good at hoarding will obtain unfair control of economic resources, eventually culminating in the same inequity we currently see in capitalist society.  so no private ownership of real estate.

using the terms currently in use, citizens would therefore rent property, on the free market, selecting the property from those available that best matches their preferences and how much of their 'hours' they wish to spend on shelter.  no one actually gets 'paid' the rent, nobody is receiving rental income, in the same way nobody 'loses' hours when citizens are paid for working.  the 'hours' are printed (in bernanke speak) when citizens work, and disappear when they are spent.  same as money in the current system - hours are not real, they have no intrinsic value.

as with rented properties now, maintenance on the existing structure would be provided by the 'owner' ie the cost would be rebated back to the citizen.  any modifications and subsequent maintenance would be the responsibility of the citizen, along with the responsibility to repair any damage they cause.

the next logical topic i need to explore - if housing can't be owned as it is hoarding, logically you can't have investments for the same reason.  to extend this logic further, if there are no accumulated (hoarded) savings, there are no accumulated savings to be lent out, and that means no debt.

final point i want to make - no hoarding, no investments, no debt, doesn't actually change anything.  the same physical assets would still exist in the world.  investments and debt are just a part of the capitalist mythology that we all believe is a natural law, but it's not.  we can change the mythology if we choose to do so.  this mythology is just the system by which we currently allocate resources, and i think the system is inequitable and therefore should change.

so next posting - debt.