How is a capitalist dictatorship doing better in terms of housing than leftists countries?

This. Singapore's economic model is a lot closer to Dengism than it is to Western style capitalism.

With a Georgist model you can accomplish great low homelessness numbers either way, the apartment thing is a secondary point - they're efficient because they use less land. A huge part of the problem with apartments in much of the world is that they're run by landlords and so they end up being stupidly expensive 'luxuries' instead of efficient urban housing.

Dengism is causing a housing crisis in the PRC though.

t.Plato

yeah ok bud

Attached: 121`.jpg (1600x1061, 489.42K)

the problem with apartments is that humans are living on top of each other like rats

this image gave me claustrophobia

...

I guess the Singaporeans are just better at it then.

fascism literally just werks

LOL

Death to the American Suburb

youtube.com/watch?v=NBfwNLUDrCY

This has more to do with China's capitalist necessities to constantly grow which leads to empty apartment buildings being erected, not with the absence of rent-seeking landlords.

Imagine firebombing an american suburb.

Attached: firestorm tokyo.jpg (720x886, 313.78K)

Apartments suck.

t. suburban filth

American apartments do actually suck, in general, on top of being horrendously overpriced and cramped

inb4 you plop down that study every retard cites and noone understands
people aren't rats, and obviously an apartment building isn't a fucking rat nest except if you stick 20 people in a 40 sqm apartment

firebombing worked because the fires were designed to spread through the wooden structures of apartments in dense urban areas though.

depends on the kind of apartment. those you find in NYC brownstone rowhouses are usually nice.

Singapore is Tax Heaven with insanely favorable location and very smart Leninist government.

shut the fuck up, suburbcucks
ideal housing would be appartment blocks like those of red vienna but with modern construction techniques and free of capitalist restraints
appartments suck only in so far as conditions have made them that way, construction of them happened mostly under governments facing acute housing crises and building a ton of appartments in a rush and to this day those houses built in a rush house more people than anything built afterwards because housing developers and landlords are scum of scum

hating cities does not = liking the suburbs see

the ideal housing would be small self sufficient villages

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (1903x990, 837.2K)

ok utopian

Not only did Singapore/People Action's Party nationalized huge tracts of lands but they did in a very non-negotiable way and gave poor compensation in the form of apartments of social housing. This means they bought with little money. I doubt any government could take such a brazen step to do such a radical land nationalization nowsdays.

t. great-grandparents who did own land

What is something to really gripe about is the weaponization and politicization of the housing estates by the PAP to impede and bully the local demsuc/sucdem party Worker's Party, trying to bankrupt pic related and the new leader.

Deng actually just really like our technocratic methods.

PAP would give the SDP a run for its money for the 'around the rose' award. LKY himself personally knew our national Rosa, even once introducing him as the future Prime Minister. It is probably some kind of Third Way technocratic Blairites that really dislikes democracy and likes tripartitism ie cucked unions.

Attached: IMG_2597.GIF (480x480, 6.85M)

It is true though. Almost a third of the current population is made up of foreigners with the current party trying to have 2 million foreigners out of 6 million by 2030. The local term is bifurcated labour since both high and low end jobs are being taken up by foreigners.

kay

the ancom literally hates communes

YEWBOL GANG ASSEMBLE

Better housing situation if you do not give free reign to a class of mooching scum. This principle can still apply under capitalism.

they're efficient because they use less land.

Ohnononon. Read on historical conditions of the countryside and youll change your mind fast

Depends. A tiny apartment for a family with 6 children is obviously sub-par, but i'd much prefer living in an apartment over living in a house (whether alone or married/cohabiting). You might just never have seen non-crappy apartments.

Singapore is fucking weird
It's like actually existing state-capitalism where everyone has basic welfare for all
It's pretty the SocDem gang Utopia

Lots of feels of realsing about Muh house ITT
In terms of Material conditions there is literally nothing that (Well made and maintained) apartments can not provide to you by living in them

To elaborate slightly on what I said about Singapores economy…
Unlike most East Asian Tiger economies that are AnCrap tier in some cases Singapore has a relatively high amount of public sector control of the economy (Such as the aforementioned 80% of all land in the country still being state owned / managed) with the goverment either directly or indirectly controlling multiple business's industries through the use of shell companies owned by the goverment ("Temasek holdings" is an example of this as it is a wealth fund owned by the goverment that in turn owns shares and such etc in multiple major companies and subsidiaries)

Isn't their economy sustainable only because it's in the middle of Asian trade routes?

Singapore is like Qatar, Bahrain, or the UAE, mini states propped up by foreign slave labor

I'm living paycheck to paycheck and have in the past considered committing some petty crime to be jailed just for three square meals. The government's attitude to welfare is: "You're not making me money? Fuck you, die." They jerk off constantly about self-reliance and family resilience, to the point that you'd practically need to ruin your entire extended family to be considered for the byzantine web of poorly understood social assistance schemes. They sing praises of Asian values and filial piety, while at the same time charging impoverished beggars a license to sell packets of tissue (a dodge to claim there is no beggary in Singapore). When clusters of homeless people were discovered in small tent communities on the beaches, they raided them, basically imprisoned the homeless, and tightened regulations on camping, claiming all the while that there were no homeless people, just some bad people abusing the beach. When asked about the aged poor collecting cardboard or aluminium cans to eke out a living, they said, "oh, nonsense. They're just doing this for a bit of fresh air and exercise, I'm sure."

Was this propaganda?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (860x491, 856.29K)

Eh, I didn't watch it, but I've gleaned a basic idea about it from conversation - for a few weeks no-one would fucking shut up about it. My understanding is that it's a decent glimpse of the lives of the top 0.1% here - a fabulous existence completely separate from everyone else. Any specific details you want to discuss?

Fun fact: the novel's author defaulted on his military service obligations, and can be arrested if he ever turns up - while at the same time the government totally loves him for producing what amounts to Singapore's greatest tourism campaign ever.

so singapore's main setback is muh feudal times confucius spooks?

I wouldn't say it's the main one - that's largely a sop to conservative voters, no matter how paper-thin. They've been doubling down on social conservatism of late, due to a declining vote share. As an aside, there will be lavish celebrations of the bicenntenial of our bloody colonisation, because the last time they held a huge nostalgia party, they swept the elections.

Some major issues I can think of:

1. The party in government spent quite a while being very purge-happy - side effect: the current generation of politicians are mostly bootlicking yes-men incapable of original thought.(but who think very highly of themselves, having cruised through the upper class track of elite prep schools, military scholarships abroad, followed by running our military). The purges also had the effect of utterly cucking us in terms of moving leftward for at least another generation - communism and socialism are practically bogeymen, with the hammer and sickle being the only political symbol banned in Singapore.

2. The party crows about being non-ideological and pragmatic, with a fixation on growth, keeping the budget balanced, and spending as little as is humanly possible. Hence highly aggressive means-testing for any sort of welfare, gate-kept by an army of obstructive bureaucrats. I believe we have enough in surpluses and reserves to have fucking amazing welfare several times over, but any suggestion for more social spending is met with autistic screeching about how the whole island will explode and we'll be wageslaves in other countries.

3. Most of the key positions of government are held by a small handful of interlinked, old-money families. Suggesting any impropriety concerning this (or suggesting that the judiciary is anything but lily-white and utterly objective) will see you sued to Hell and back again. If you find some loophole to challenge or constrain them in any way, the Constitution will be duly amended.

4. The public housing system - basic things like increasing prices outpacing incomes significantly, or subsidised public housing being denied to non-traditional households (single people under 35, gays, etc) pale in comparison to one thing - they're 99-year leases, not 'owned' as such, and I believe they revert to the government at the end of the lease, without compensation. Mind you, it was originally claimed that homes would be assets that would appreciate in value, forever, like some sort of perpetual prosperity machine, but flats that are around 30, 40 years old are starting to depreciate. Possibly one of the biggest potential shitfests in coming years.

5. Related to points 1 & 3. We have a mandatory savings scheme - ostensibly for retirement purposes, but you can also use it for housing, healthcare, and education, and disability insurance. Strikes me as a (regressive) tax by another name, but anyway. It's becoming ever-harder to access these funds - increasing age requirements and minimum sum. Through some financial wizardry, the funds are basically invested by the state sovereign wealth fund - both of these organisations are utterly opaque, but you can guess at the sort of people in charge. I fear that if the trend of ever-more smoothbrained people getting in charge continues, the whole thing could crash and burn.

Keep meaning to make an effort post shilling Gemeindebauten on this board. I would unironically like to go across the Atlantic and visit Vienna just to study their housing system, the best in the world.