American Cannot Be Made Great Again Unless We Nationalize Housing

Cool, I'm down.So there's a lot of fancy emotional rhetoric used to stir up the feels, but the three claims he makes are really straight-forward: nationalize housing to bring cost of living down, 3D print out some cities to encourage some jobs to come back from overseas because cheaper housing?STARTING WITH THE NATIONALIZATION:First, the entire plan is extremely utopian. He just lists out a bunch of random things without any actual explanation as to how they are going to happen, if they'll even work, or if they can even happen in the first place (more on this later).Second, there's physically zero way to impliment this plan. Constitutionally the gov't isn't going to be able to just go up to every private housing company and say "hey fam, your profits are ours now" as would happen with nationalization. Moreover, where is all this "credit" coming from that he's handing out to people? Who's paying for all of this "credit"? The government? I thought the entire point was to reduce the amount of debt we're in, not spend more money.Third, it's a little ridiculous to have him claim that to reduce national debt we need to nationalize housing markets. I feel like someone's forgetting the last time this was tried with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and how well that one actually turned out for the tax payers. Just as a quick run down of what that actually did to the economy:- It killed stock value of the two companies and screwed over 100% of the shareholders of the company, who went from making bank off of their investments to getting exactly $0 from their shares.[1] Market value for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares plummeted. If people lose a reason to invest into housing markets, then either a) housing companies are going to fail and collapse, meaning that we won't actually be able to produce anywhere near the amount of houses that would be required for his "Never a homeless American again" claim, or b) the government would have to spend obscene amounts of money (an exact figure being $238 billion), which means we go further into debt rather than climb out of it.[1]So right from the get-go his plan fails. There's no real way to nationalize the entire housing industry, nor is there any explanation as to how it will work in the way he claims it will work. Moreover, attempts at this in the past have failed miserably for both the tax payers and the government, meaning that it will have the opposite effects to his overall desired goals. Easy neg vote right here.BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE! GOING TO THE 3D PRINTED CITIES STUFF:....what the hell are 3D printed cities?First, we can't actually do any of these things right now. Experts in the field predict that it's going to take 100 years before we have the capability to mass produce the number of houses that would be required to give a home to every single person as he's wanting to[2], meaning that his plan here is literally impossible.Second, wanna ask the question of why 3D printed cities are cheaper and more efficient as he's claiming. Because they eliminate the number of people who are actually working on building houses to **1** person[3]. That's why labor and material costs are lower and the cities are more efficient, is because there's no one actually working there to pay in the first place. This is the exact opposite definition of bringing home jobs - not only is the market going to be terrible because there's no actual investment being made into it by the public (meaning that they either fail or the gov't is spending loads more money to keep them floating) which means that employers who want to be able to actually make some money aren't going to come back, but we're laying off 90% of the labor that goes into building houses in present day. He's not actually bringing home jobs, he's killing what jobs are actually left.Third, the math behind the total build time of these houses in general looks hella sketchy. If the source is true and this tech he wants to use is capable of "building a 100-square-meter concrete house within 24 hours, or a 1,000-square-foot house within 10 days" to quote directly from the article[3], those times look really strange. What's 100 square meters look like in feet? A hair over 1000 square feet[4]. So it takes one day to build a house, but ten days to build a virtually identical house? The logic behind this tech makes no sense.Fourth, there's no reason to believe that the increased efficiency of these cities (presuming we can even make them on the scale he wants) will actually go to the things he's saying they could go to. If anything any actual savings from energy efficiency would need to go into actually making sure this won't bankrupt the government with the total costs of trying to nationalize the housing market. So he doesn't actually get access to any of the benefits he says he gets access to.SO TO WRAP THINGS UPHis idea sounds nice. It's a nice thought - a house for everyone so that there's no homeless and we don't need to worry about paying for houses anymore. But then we wake up from the dream we were in and realize that there's no way that this could ever actually happen without disasterous consequences. Pretty easy negative vote here.SOURCES:[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - https://3dprint.com...[3] - https://3dprint.com...[4] - https://www.google.com...