We’ve never tried pure capitalism so we shouldn’t knock it until we’ve given it a fair shake.
Check Argentina if you want to see what happens when you want to try “pure” capitalism lol Also not like there’s been a shitton of books written describing in detail it’s contradictions, which apparently you choose to ignore and espouse liberal ideology instead
Argentina hasn’t had anything resembling a free market economy in the past hundred years, but the 8 months of austerity to fix that shit sandwich is the best example of ‘pure capitalism’ you can come up with?
Capitalism has a strong state because with it is more competitive than capitalism without state intervention, and it also needs more protection from revolution than it used to.
Literally just have an understanding of history and your meme ideology will be a thing of your past that is a little embarrassing
We totally did try pure capitalism. It mostly led to naked children in coal mines (because their clothes would get stuck on the sides of the super narrow mining shafts, you see) and pepper with iron fillings (because scrap iron was cheaper than actual pepper). Also a lot of other horrifying stuff, but those two have always stuck out to me.
Funny because it you talk to libertarians, we’ve never had a pure capitalist society. You probably just don’t realize how similar they all are to the people who claim we’ve never tried our Communism.
they all are to the people who claim we’ve never tried our Communism.
When you dont know the difference between socialism and communism
Blood iron levels plummeted after that pepper stopped being fortified and if the children don’t like their jobs or how they are treated they can find new ones.
A seventeen minute video is too long.
Can you summarize it into a snappy and humoros sentence or two?
I don’t automatically recognize posters on Lemmy but when I do, its SatansMaggotyCumFart.
Which makes me ask, how do you identify politically?
I’m pretty open about my politics so if you’ve seen my postings you should have a pretty good idea.
Fair enough, I figured I’d ask, in case you wanted to declare a specific position. I know most people don’t like being put in boxes.
I guess I’ll look through some posts and speculate from there.
No one should get a second home until everyone’s had their first.
i’d probably go second… it’s useful to have a housing surplus that’s financed by private entities so that you can have a house while working for your first house
but anything more than providing shelter with some small reward to encourage civic responsibility (ie building houses rather than owning stock) is complete idiocy
Except for the first one, each next home should be taxed exponentially higher.
All homes should be taxed based on land value rather than property value.
Based on your negative votes I don’t think Lemmy is a huge fan of Georgism. Which sucks because Mr.Beat had a great video on it.
Defeat the fuckingcapitalists
I love the binary in the newscast. Anything more than 10 homes should be illegal.
Should be illegal to own more than two homes honestly. Especially if you’re using them as rental properties. You should get one rental property and that’s it. The rest must be residence
I’m fine with renting as it spares me all the hassle that comes with owning. I live in Germany where renting is heavily regulated and it works so good that nearly 60% of the people over here never own any of the flats or houses they happily live in.
Ten should be the max number as that represents an average apartment house over here.
Yeah, but you could rent from the government instead of private owners. You have completely no leverage over them, and government could use the rent money to build more housing for renting or sale and drive prices of housing down instead.
It’d be tough finding rental properties in cities with apartment buildings. Or you’d have mishmash of owners which could make it harder to deal with them and possibly get them built.
Definitely would be interesting seeing how the market would deal with it.
the market is dealing with it by enriching a few landlords at the expense of a small army of homeless people in a given metropolis
Why should they get a rental property? Why should basic fundamental human necessities of which we have plenty be treated as commodities? You get the house you live in, and I get the house I live in, and if you want to try to extort me for payment for that house no one should support you.
Some people do prefer to rent than deal with the hassle of homeownership, so there is a place for people renting out a second property. No one needs to rent out more than one property through, corporate ownership should be abolished for anything that is not a single building (i.e. 50 units in a condo building) as well.
Just make it illegal for businesses to own real estate, or participate in real estate markets of any kind outside of strictly regulated commercial areas.
Also make laws that protect home owners not banks… The list goes on… Nationalized food production, making it illegal for incorporated cities to have more than a very small number of homeless.
