Why don't construction prices go down?

Huh, you can register a small business. Why is it assumed here right away that with [Kleinanzeigen] everything bypasses the tax office...

At its core, the discussion is nothing more than Keynes revisited, which has already spectacularly failed, because in the end, investment is not made in the future or in value creation within the country, but ultimately debt is taken on for consumer products from China.
Ultimately, the problem in Germany is not the money in many places. Many things can easily be built by the private sector, whether wind farms or high-voltage power lines. However, the problem here is primarily excessive bureaucracy and inefficient administration. As a builder, one can sing the same song on a small scale as various companies do on a large scale. In politics, however, it is a classic Sunday topic that everyone talks about but no one actually works on.

But that does not answer my question from #406.

One would have to answer that the correlation is not correct. Or one would have to answer that the correlation is correct and immediately explain who is borrowing and why.

However, the discussion is 90% OT and unfortunately there is no OT thread anymore for such things. If interested, we can just move the discussion into private messages so as not to annoy here.

But it is simply essential, whether OT or not: For example, we can clearly see from the borrowing capacity of prospective homebuyers how the construction sector completely collapses when interest rates are raised. And it goes without saying that there is no growth associated with that. Investment only happens if the investments are paid for.

You simply cannot have both: everyone being solid without new debt and growing at the same time. Whether Keynes or someone else discovered this first is irrelevant, it is simply true.

I find that interesting though. And somehow it is also on topic

It is a huge difference whether you borrow once for an investment within a framework that is bearable for the next few years (house construction) or whether you make losses every year and need loans to cover other obligations. We have a debt of about 65% of GDP here, with market-standard interest rates, which at the current tax rate means obligations that you cannot easily outgrow. By the way, the real estate sector not only has a credit problem but also a cost problem. If you could acquire or build an existing property in reasonable condition for 200k, 5% interest would not be a big issue.

It is just a huge difference whether you go into debt once for an investment within a framework that is bearable for the coming years (house construction) or whether you make losses every year and need loans to cover other obligations. We have a debt of about 65% of GDP here, at market interest rates that means obligations at the current tax rate from which you cannot easily grow out again. By the way, the real estate sector not only has a credit problem but also a cost problem. If you could acquire or build an existing property in reasonable condition for 200k, then 5% interest would not be a big problem.

That still does not answer the central question.
Sorry for my persistence, but I am a trained scientist. If a central question is unresolved, derived questions are initially irrelevant. We are now at the point of “but you just can’t…”

for an investment within a framework that is bearable for the coming years (house construction) or whether you make losses every year and need loans to cover other obligations.

But now you are back to the idea that the state is subject to the same logic as a private homeowner. A relevant difference is that states do not repay their debts but revolve them. Of course, almost every state (exceptions are for example OPEC states) absolutely necessarily needs new loans all the time—what else?

Voltaire already wrote about this.

Paper money returns sooner or later to its intrinsic value – zero.

In this respect, every state will rid itself of its debts. The citizen usually loses everything in this process.