Why we don\’t take our economic policies from French rent boysJanuary 21, 2011 Tim WorstallEconomics19 CommentsI believe that the best solution to end homelessness is to abolish private property. previousQuite right Mr. KrugmannextRising school fees: which claim is correct? 19 thoughts on “Why we don\’t take our economic policies from French rent boys” Tim Newman January 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm To be fair, it worked in the Soviet Union. Anyone homeless was chucked in a labour camp, a home of sorts. Rupert Fiennes January 21, 2011 at 4:54 pm You needed a pripska (residence permit) to live where you were: if this was revoked, you could be forced to move anywhere. An effective tool of oppression, as pesky dissidents could be exiled to the kolkhoz in short order if required. If you fancy a good laugh, the first chapter of The Liberators by Viktor Suvorov explores some of these issues 🙂 paul ilc January 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm Thierry Schaffauser sounds like a classic example of poverty as a life-style choice. JuliaM January 21, 2011 at 5:27 pm ‘Property is theft’, he opines. Can’t see why the ‘Guardian’ thought he’d be able to add something to the debate, can you? paul ilc January 21, 2011 at 6:13 pm JuliaM: Doubtless he’s full of such Gallic nonsense – and not just Proudhon’s idiocy. The Guardian loves a little continental pseudo-intellectualism. Pat January 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm So at a casual reading we have a young lady making a plea for her own private apartment- her problem is basically that she hasn’t the money. And a plea for the abolition of private property. Can’t have both! Ian January 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm Spending two-thirds of your income just to have a place to sleep is something most people still find normal in London and are ready to do. Yes, because they are _in London_, and don’t have to mix with hoi palloi on public transport getting there and the extra expense. The smart people move out of London and travel instead. This is not the first time I’ve heard a terminal whinger ask, before getting on the clue train, why premium property is not cheaper. blokeinfrance January 21, 2011 at 7:18 pm Is he kidding? Landlords LOVE prostitutes. They keep the place nice and clean, pay cash and are easy to evict. The worst tenants, traditionally, were nurses. But I think they’ve been overtaken by graduate students (according to my plumber’s wife). dearieme January 21, 2011 at 7:29 pm PhD students are all right in my experience, as long as you avoid anyone studying law, business or economics. Surreptitious Evil January 21, 2011 at 10:57 pm My Great Aunt was the manager of a Mayfair letting agency during WW2. She had some wonderful stories about rent collection – and, being a good social economist, usually required bribing with decent wine before disclosure. Surreptitious Evil January 21, 2011 at 11:02 pm “president of the GMB- IUSW, Adult Entertainment branch” Ah, yes, somebody (probably us) is paying him for that … morpork January 22, 2011 at 2:50 am Dearieme: No, watch out for the PPEs. You know where they’re gonna end up. The Romans had the best idea: strangle ’em and leave ’em on the hillside. Kinder to them and to the rest of us. morpork January 22, 2011 at 3:01 am I’m sure there must be a word which describes that gasping for breath because you’re laughing at one thing and then see something which you also have to laugh at. That word describes what I felt when I read: “After a series of unfortunate events, including being given notice to quit by my landlady, I found myself homeless and with a four-month-old baby.” and “Most landlords are not happy to have a sex worker for tenant, ” I’ve saved a copy of this Guardian page. I suspect it might become viral. Well, it will if I have anything to do with it. Hugo January 22, 2011 at 3:16 am The rest is brilliant: “Many buildings are empty because rich people need more money in the bank. Owners prefer to keep their property empty: this increases demand for accommodation, thus raising the cost of renting.” Because tens of thousands of landlords is clearly a monopoly and empty properties make more money than full ones. Stupid Frenchie. So Much For Subtlety January 22, 2011 at 4:03 am I have to say I am disappointed. I always assumed French prostitutes were a cut above our own. More sophisticated. More aware. More literate. Oh well. Another illusion about France busted. David Gillies January 22, 2011 at 9:22 am I’ve run into a boatload of soi disant Euro-intellectuals and their bovine, lock-step stupidity is quite hair-raising. There’s no cause for complacency, either. That their idiocy will see them marched into hell a few decades ahead of the Anglosphere doesn’t mean we’ll avoid the same fate. First thing we do, let’s kill all the Gramscians. efgd January 22, 2011 at 10:54 am How do you suggest we deal with homelessness? Philip Walker January 22, 2011 at 9:31 pm Hugo: Yes, I couldn’t quite see how maintaining empty buildings resulted in more money in the bank relative to getting paying tenants into them. The way I see it, if you are fortunate enough to own two (similar, to keep the numbers easy) rental properties, keeping one of them empty is unlikely to more than double the rent of the other one. But then, I can be dreadfully uncreative in that way. So Much For Subtlety January 22, 2011 at 11:19 pm efgd – “How do you suggest we deal with homelessness?” End Care in the Community. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.