Die gute Nachricht ist dass der Bund nicht für Kultur zuständig ist.

Denmark has claimed Greenland for longer than the current batch of Inuit live there. Norse settled there some 500 years before Columbus, in completely uninhabited lands. Those settlements failed, current batch of Inuit moved in, history happened. At some point Danes ceased to be assholes thus Denmark fully recognises the Inuit’s rights to self-determination, to declare independence if and when they so desire. No “unfortunate necessity” excuse why they can’t do it which you seem to believe is justifiable. There’s also no deciding for the Inuit “you must become independent, now”, like you’re doing.

Go, look in the mirror, have a long, deep, thought about who has a colonial mindset, here, and who doesn’t. Who is keen on deciding things for another people, and who isn’t.

Absolut. Sollte aus dem was ich gesagt habe eigentlich auch zu erkennen sein.

Kenn’ halt aber auch Leute die schon vor 20 Jahren zum CSD gegangen sind um Party zu machen.

Ja nee die Loveparade ist halt auch keine Demo, das ist ein Festzug. Bei letzterem kann die Gemeinde das Straßenkehren usw. in Rechnung stellen darum hätte sich der Veranstalter gerne gedrückt, ging damals durch einige Instanzen.

Wenn jetzt alle irgendwann zu scheißtolerant sind als dass man da noch irgendwas politisch fordern müsste dann wird man sich, über kurz oder lang, genauso wie Karneval oder Trachtenumzug als Festzug anmelden müssen.

Wird aber noch de Weile dauern man kann ja auch mal so ganz nebenbei für die Rechte von Menschen ganz wo anders demonstrieren. Die Reaktion der Linken ist da… komisch. Viel Signalisierung “wir finden den CSD voll dufte sind auf eurer Seite”, is ja auch gut und richtig, von ner Partei hätte ich dann aber doch irgendwie gerne “Seit verdammt noch mal politisch! Seit unbequem! Auf die Barrikaden! Ja dann findet halt welche!” gehört.

No insurance is prejudicial to the good order of the EU legal framework on accidents, liability, etc. The list afterwards is not exhaustive.

Also who the fuck is going to complain. Russia? International law is whatever states get away with.

Additional ones? None, really. The EU Parliament has declared Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism since 2022, some member states went further and went with terrorist state.

Without that kind of thing sanctioning Russia to the degree we do wouldn’t even be legally possible. Should we send a hit squad after Putin? It’s not that I oppose on principle but if it was in Ukraine’s interest the SBU would have already gotten to him. Martyrs and power vacuums tend to be bad news.

The Baltics have long since gamed this out I’d suggest following their lead.

Zyklon B wasn’t really an I.G. Farben product, it was developed (as a pesticide) and primarily produced by Degesch, a subsidiary of Degussa, now Evonik. I.G. Farben bought 30% of Degesch shares in 1930, increasing to 42.6% in 1936, that’s the connection. Degussa also processed tooth gold. Ultimately the people hanged at the gallows for Zyklon B were none of the producers but (aside from the ones doing the poisoning) the distributors, in particular for supplying Zyklon B without odorant. The inventor got an aquittal after sitting six years in remand.

I guess the whole Zyklon B to I.G. Farben connection is very much influenced by the high-profile process and forced breakup of the conglomerate. Judging by current evilness I’d definitely put Bayer on top. Back then as now, I guess: No, not Nazis, but profiteers without scruples: Plundering industry in conquered lands, forced labour, that’s mostly what I.G. Farben executives were sentenced for. Not guilty verdicts on the bringing Nazis to power part, being SS members, and preparing for war of aggression, though they certainly made money off producing for the war.

Well, it’s sufficient. Using larger calibres for the opening salvo would increase the risk of companies succeeding in fighting fines before court, and companies generally have some kind of creative interpretation of the law at the ready to justify what they’re doing. Fining companies into bankruptcy or out of competition for a first offence is rather hard to justify, for repeat offenders, though? Companies continuing their behaviour after having received a warning fine have no excuse, now the gloves come off otherwise you’re perceived as a paper tiger.

EU fines generally have a bad track record when it comes to stopping companies from trying to get away with stuff, but they do have an excellent track record when it comes to making them stop.

Differently put: You won’t see the EU levy another fine against Apple for this because Apple doesn’t fancy getting slapped with a 40bn fine. If your main armament is big enough all you’ll ever need is shots before the bow.

Das ist, unironisch, wie ich meinen Kaffee mache. Halt, bevor ihr zu den Mistgabeln greift, nicht mit ner Espressomaschine sondern Aeropress: Der Kaffee wird mit weniger Wasser besser, aber nicht espresso-gut, also wird aufgefüllt. 70% mit übrigem heißem Wasser aus der Kanne, rest kalt aus dem Wasserhahn denn ich will gleich mit dem Trinken anfangen.

Because every regular citizen who owns their house or appartment will lose half their wealth or more when the housing market goes down.

Which is of no consequence when you’re living in it.

The limiting factor is not construction crews but plots and approvals.

[citation needed]. There’s plenty of land left and right, it’s almost trivial to re-designate agricultural land as residental, but who the fuck is going to build all the streets, tram line, all the houses. A stroke of a pen on the one side, actual training and logistics on the other.

The problem is that the market is supposed to stay high.

It’s not. Unless you’re someone with multiple properties trying to profit off it, then you want it to raise. Otherwise, everyone benefits from low prices.

As you can imagine the populist right would rather work together with the far right than with the populist left

Ah fuck it let’s give the Churches money to build apartments, then. They don’t believe in anything anyway so let’s just capture a vague sense of conservativeness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Network

It’s an umbrella organisation for neoliberal thinktanks coming up with such brilliant takes as the nanny-state rating where you’re getting freedom demerits for taxing tobacco. They’re also the ones (well, the UK branch is) behind Brexit, due to incoming EU regulations on tax havens.

Anything connected to the Atlas network too, please, while we’re at it.

It’s not entirely unwarranted, they WERE planning to work on a tourist-visa

[citation needed]

They said they wanted to travel spontaneously. That is, they had their first hotel booked, then would’ve booked another hotel, or left the states early.

Maybe Americans just don’t understand travel that’s not an organised five-day trip.

That kind of judgement already exists in the form of what rents social services are willing to pay (the personal allowance is the same everywhere, allowed rent varies by location). As far as building permits go you can always build luxury housing, it’s a question of how much social housing you’re required to build alongside. Municipalities have been way too lax on that in the past, social housing status was allowed to lapse, pretty much no municipality makes use of their right of first refusal for land sales, etc.

The trouble with allowing the market to come to an equilibrium at its own pace is where are people going to live in the meantime. If this was about avocado toast, no problem, let them eat brioche, but basic human necessities being in undersupply has potentially catastrophic outcomes. As in: People are going to vote for Nazis because they don’t trust any party to solve their issues catastrophic.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialwahl

There need to be inefficiencies like the surplus for the market to work.

I wasn’t talking about inefficiencies. Try again.

Forbidding luxery apartments is a bad regulation. Who is judging that?

I just did. And I gave a reasoning. You also judged it, but came to the opposite conclusion, and gave no reasoning.

I can’t be arsed you’re a hopeless case. Learn to care about the shit you argue about.

For me, the context was surplus to drive prices down.

Then you want to regulate the market such that there’s a surplus of ordinary apartments and a relative lack of luxury ones. People are free to furnish theirs more luxuriously, that’s not an imposition, but not having affordable ones would be. No need to get into fixing absolute prices all you need to control for is relative availability.

The market is not a good in itself. It is a mechanism to attain good things. To do that, in the real world, to actually approach the free market ideal (perfect resource allocation by perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information) you have to enact regulations because, as we already discussed, both rich and poor folks alike are idiots: The rich invest in stuff based on hype, creating real estate bubbles, the poor tolerate 120 buck fridges even though they want 150 buck fridges.

If the market goes down, many people lose their retirement provisions.

Again we’re in /c/europe, here, not in the US. Also why should irrational investors deserve protection. “Socialism for the rich but not the poor”?

There are not enough plots, in Germany the rent is capped but the building requirements don’t allow to reduce costs.

Rent increases are capped. Not rents for new construction. Rents that the welfare system will pay are capped, not the ones on the open market.

…and yes there are plots. There’s actually a shortage of construction capacity, not in the least because politics just won’t commit to firm targets, something that construction companies can work with, make sure they don’t overshoot when growing. They’d rather not go bankrupt so they only increase capacity conservatively.

Change those, and capital will build more housing.

There is no shortage of capital flowing into the market, there has never been a shortage during all of this. The issue that noone wants to, or can, pay the rents that those people demand. We’ve been over this. The same investment at a more moderate ROI expectation would’ve built everything we need multiple times over.

There are enough laws in Germany that you cannot have a prefabricated house and build it everywhere without ajustments.

Oh sure some municipalities will tell you that your roof needs to be at a certain angle. That’s peanuts compared to the overall costs and believe it or not, there’s generally a reason for those requirements – it may seem cultural but if you e.g. get a lot of snow you either want all snow to come down as fast as possible, or not at all. People weren’t stupid 500 years ago when everyone started to angle their roofs like that.

Low tech high risers should bring rent down to a fraction but they are not allowed to be built.

They’re absolutely allowed to be built, you can still build the same kind of housing stock as was done after the war during reconstruction.

Lastly, beware of looking at all this in isolation: Getting rid of regulations that ensure that the city looks nice, is liveable, is walkable, that housing is healthy to live in, the whole shebang, would have untold macroeconomic costs down the line.

Because we have a market economy. We can switch to planning, but that has its own disadvantages

Planned economy is not when there are regulations.

They should not. It’s market manipulation that we don’t have enough apartments.

“Manipulation” implies intent to achieve that state of affairs, and, no, that wasn’t the goal of capital. Capital wanted ROI and looked for it in the wrong place.

With different zoning laws or more plots to built, there would be enough apartments.

In the US, yes. Europe by and large doesn’t have such inane laws.

In which way? Why are those apartments not on the open market?

The syndicate – did you read the link I gave you – specifically works towards removing properties from the market, get all control into the hands of the tenants. Rents pay for the mortgage, that’s it, no middleman, and the legal structure ensures that tenants can’t band up and cash out like many a cooperative did.

That’s also why people shouldn’t be forced to be rational. The Sovjet Union was forcing people to be rational but people weren’t happy.

The fuck has the USSR to do with anything we’re talking about. Also why are you calling tankies rational go to lemmygrad if you like them so much.