Friday, April 3, 2009

Give the woman a polar bear

A part of the Swedish government thinks that it is too expensive to build and own skyscrapers. Consequently they are pondering on subsidize it with a “skyscrapers bonus”. In other words they are saying to construction companies: Build some stuff you cannot afford to build - because we have made it too expensive - and we give you money! And then we send the bill to the taxpayers that cannot afford to live in these new buildings… unless… we give the taxpayers extra incentive to borrow and/or we subsidize it! Yeah! And the taxpayers can pay for that too! God, we are so smart. Wonder why the Americans didn’t think of this, it’s brilliant. But of course we need to impose some restrictions and make sure that these things are built were we want them to be and of course we need to carefully choice the “right” builders to increase competition because we believe in capitalism.

The spokesperson for the Moderat party, Kristina Alvendal, is quoted saying:
“Something needs to be done to make construction companies to really start thinking vertically and build accordingly.”

This is like a really bad joke, but it happens to be true. Apparently the main decision is the governments to make. Maybe they say no, but to even consider this idiocy, and at a time like this, is both frightening and funny. This Alvedal person should be forced to live at a homeless shelter eating rats; I could actually give some pennies for that kind of housing if she ended up there. And let’s give her a nice carnivorous and very hungry polar bear as pet.


  1. It's not true that taxpayers will pay for the buildings. Learn the differens between not billing and to give. The Taxpayers don't give air to people just because the state doesn't bill breathing.

  2. What are you talking about? One of us is drunk and sadly it is not me. It is right there in the suggestion you moron. To subsidize or to give the money straight off doesn’t matter; it is still the taxpayers paying for it.

  3. I do not agree with you at all on this one.

    This is how it works in Stockholm: As a developer you pay a fee/tax to the city for each square metre of constructed real estate.
    It does not matter if you build the same amount of square metres of real estate with 1 floor on a huge lot or 20 floors on a small lot. The tax is the same as long as the constructed amount of square metres are the same. This is of course a problem since the cost of a building rises with the number of floors constructed. Because of this, most buildings constructed in Stockholm are quite low. The tax quickly becomes a to big burden to add another floor.

    This is a problem since Stockholm is a city that grows very quickly. At the same time there is a political will to save as much green space as possible. Infrastructure also becomes more expensive if people live spread out instead of densely. Finally, a dense cityscape promotes the use of public transit over the usage of cars, which goes along well with enviromental concerns.
    With all these aspects kept in mind, both developers and the city only loose money at the moment, since very few build tall buildings anyway. The prospect of the tax money goes to waste because few developers build tall, and the town gets stuck with higher costs for infrastructure, land waste and enviromental concerns.

  4. Yes, exactly.

    And who has created that system?

    And how is the market reacting when some buildings or contractors get incentive and not others?

    And if everything stays the same, with this subsidizing in place, what happens to the price of these commodities?

    And how/were will these buildings be built; at the cheapest or at the most expensive place?

    If you answer these questions and then also take into account what this stupid lady is saying about contractors and environment you will realize that not only is the taxpayers paying for this lunacy, they are going to pay a huge sum. Much larger than the actual cost of subsidizing it.

  5. If anyone wants to know how things turn out when government does this and that on the housing and real estate market, take a look at what is going on across the Atlantic. This suggestion isn’t near that travesty, but it is the child of the same stupid socialist thinking.