• 2 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle








  • I would argue that Germany is not a socialist country. Politics are targeted at the already wealthy and cooperations.

    I’m not versed enough in politics and history to give detailed examples. I’m just a normal guy. However, I’m currently listening to the Jung & Naiv podcast on Spotify.

    In episode 661 they discuss the development of the housing sector since the 1950s and very little in the 18th century. The important information is that the housing sector grew from being socialist to being a housing market.

    I think they mention that in the 50s there existed a “Kostenmiete” (Cost-rent). That would only be allowed by law to be as high as it needed to be to cover the costs for building the house/flat. The owners were not allowed to make profit exceeding 3.5%. Any profit had to be put into housing again to keep the housing sector growing. Around that time the state was heavily supporting housing unions and other groups (not cooperations) to build housing. The state itself built 500.000 !!! appartments a year. Last year the interview says they built 6 appartments. Six, in case you thought you read a typo.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ At least in the housing market we are not socialist anymore and it becomes worse every year. Education becomes worse every year. The medical sector becomes worse every year. Public transport becomes worse every year. Loans do not keep up with inflation. Everything becomes more expensive.

    Yes, we are better off than many. But are we not just richer slaves with more benefits than others? The interview says that there exist studies that estimate 11 million households to qualify for social housing. In some cities that is 60% of their population. 60% quality for social housing. Are we alright?







  • Pantoffel@feddit.de
    cake
    toGames@lemmy.worldMicrosoft Next Console Coming 2028
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Yes, I totally agree with what you said.

    They currently try to buy out the digital gaming space of the internet, sell it for cheap and later on up the price. That’s what big corporations usually do nowadays. Same with X, Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. It’s a big issues that we as consumers and later on citizens of our planet face.

    However, currently it is a sweet deal for me. And the argument that I’d own the game otherwise doesn’t count for me as I would most probably never replay it. So what’s the use of owning it if it’s just collecting dust in the shelf?

    The argument of whose property the item is is different for me for movies, series, and audiobooks. I’m surprised that this scheme was not yet applied for books / e-books. Or am I wrong?


  • Pantoffel@feddit.de
    cake
    toGames@lemmy.worldMicrosoft Next Console Coming 2028
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I can totally relate. Paying 30-100€ per game is something for rich people or something I’d do once or max twice a year on very carefully selected games, hoping these games are worth it. With Game Pass I spend 120€ a year to access a wide range of games.

    Once I played through or once version 2 of a game comes out, I’m not likely to play it ever again.

    Also I have phases where I play a lot and phases where I do not play at all. I can simply discontinue Game Pass in these cases.