▲ 497 ▼ Just baffling (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 year ago by jackeroni@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago* (20 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -8 points 1 year ago (19 children) That's a very marxist perspective. There very much is a debate going on all across the planet as to how much freedom from government and religion that people should have. If you bother to educate yourself on the politics of Muslim dominant nations you will see they are having those discussions right now. To be clear Cowbee, you are talking theory and I am asking you to pull your head out of your books and look at the world around you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (19 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (18 children) If you despise my assertion that you only read theory you should not make claims like "Iran is fairly liberal now". The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don't exist like they do in capitalust economies. Try looking into African nations that are liberal in name only and literally any Muslim dominant nation that permits religion to have a direct role in the government if you want to see societies that are debating what degree of liberalism is acceptable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (15 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 year ago (14 children) Most of the privatization of Iran has been going extremely slowly and the economy is still heavily controlled by the central authority. They on paper suggested things 15-20 years ago that they have been slow to adopt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (13 children) No but being slow because you refuse to adopt the liberalizing policies is an indication that you aren’t serious about being liberal. It’s like suggesting China is serious about socialism when they have a stock market and income inequality is widening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (13 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (12 children) Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization. Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism. You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don’t exist like they do in capitalust economies. Many of us are socialists, and we don’t take issue with a state constraining the capitalist class’ economic freedom. If you live in a neoliberal hellscape like most of us, you ought to want it more constrained, too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago Im not arguing whether it us acceptable for the state to restrain private industry, but if you are claiming that Iran is liberal they cannot do this to the extent they currently are doing. My point is Iran is not a liberal nation permalink fedilink source parent [–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* If you despise my assertion You put a lot of superficial 'I'm smart' affectation into your posts for a vapid racist permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -8 points 1 year ago (19 children) That's a very marxist perspective. There very much is a debate going on all across the planet as to how much freedom from government and religion that people should have. If you bother to educate yourself on the politics of Muslim dominant nations you will see they are having those discussions right now. To be clear Cowbee, you are talking theory and I am asking you to pull your head out of your books and look at the world around you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (19 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (18 children) If you despise my assertion that you only read theory you should not make claims like "Iran is fairly liberal now". The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don't exist like they do in capitalust economies. Try looking into African nations that are liberal in name only and literally any Muslim dominant nation that permits religion to have a direct role in the government if you want to see societies that are debating what degree of liberalism is acceptable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (15 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 year ago (14 children) Most of the privatization of Iran has been going extremely slowly and the economy is still heavily controlled by the central authority. They on paper suggested things 15-20 years ago that they have been slow to adopt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (13 children) No but being slow because you refuse to adopt the liberalizing policies is an indication that you aren’t serious about being liberal. It’s like suggesting China is serious about socialism when they have a stock market and income inequality is widening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (13 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (12 children) Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization. Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism. You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don’t exist like they do in capitalust economies. Many of us are socialists, and we don’t take issue with a state constraining the capitalist class’ economic freedom. If you live in a neoliberal hellscape like most of us, you ought to want it more constrained, too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago Im not arguing whether it us acceptable for the state to restrain private industry, but if you are claiming that Iran is liberal they cannot do this to the extent they currently are doing. My point is Iran is not a liberal nation permalink fedilink source parent [–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* If you despise my assertion You put a lot of superficial 'I'm smart' affectation into your posts for a vapid racist permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (19 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (18 children) If you despise my assertion that you only read theory you should not make claims like "Iran is fairly liberal now". The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don't exist like they do in capitalust economies. Try looking into African nations that are liberal in name only and literally any Muslim dominant nation that permits religion to have a direct role in the government if you want to see societies that are debating what degree of liberalism is acceptable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (15 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 year ago (14 children) Most of the privatization of Iran has been going extremely slowly and the economy is still heavily controlled by the central authority. They on paper suggested things 15-20 years ago that they have been slow to adopt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (13 children) No but being slow because you refuse to adopt the liberalizing policies is an indication that you aren’t serious about being liberal. It’s like suggesting China is serious about socialism when they have a stock market and income inequality is widening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (13 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (12 children) Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization. Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism. You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don’t exist like they do in capitalust economies. Many of us are socialists, and we don’t take issue with a state constraining the capitalist class’ economic freedom. If you live in a neoliberal hellscape like most of us, you ought to want it more constrained, too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago Im not arguing whether it us acceptable for the state to restrain private industry, but if you are claiming that Iran is liberal they cannot do this to the extent they currently are doing. My point is Iran is not a liberal nation permalink fedilink source parent [–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* If you despise my assertion You put a lot of superficial 'I'm smart' affectation into your posts for a vapid racist permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (18 children) If you despise my assertion that you only read theory you should not make claims like "Iran is fairly liberal now". The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don't exist like they do in capitalust economies. Try looking into African nations that are liberal in name only and literally any Muslim dominant nation that permits religion to have a direct role in the government if you want to see societies that are debating what degree of liberalism is acceptable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (15 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 year ago (14 children) Most of the privatization of Iran has been going extremely slowly and the economy is still heavily controlled by the central authority. They on paper suggested things 15-20 years ago that they have been slow to adopt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (13 children) No but being slow because you refuse to adopt the liberalizing policies is an indication that you aren’t serious about being liberal. It’s like suggesting China is serious about socialism when they have a stock market and income inequality is widening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (13 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (12 children) Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization. Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism. You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don’t exist like they do in capitalust economies. Many of us are socialists, and we don’t take issue with a state constraining the capitalist class’ economic freedom. If you live in a neoliberal hellscape like most of us, you ought to want it more constrained, too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago Im not arguing whether it us acceptable for the state to restrain private industry, but if you are claiming that Iran is liberal they cannot do this to the extent they currently are doing. My point is Iran is not a liberal nation permalink fedilink source parent [–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* If you despise my assertion You put a lot of superficial 'I'm smart' affectation into your posts for a vapid racist permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (15 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 year ago (14 children) Most of the privatization of Iran has been going extremely slowly and the economy is still heavily controlled by the central authority. They on paper suggested things 15-20 years ago that they have been slow to adopt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (13 children) No but being slow because you refuse to adopt the liberalizing policies is an indication that you aren’t serious about being liberal. It’s like suggesting China is serious about socialism when they have a stock market and income inequality is widening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (13 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (12 children) Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization. Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism. You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 year ago (14 children) Most of the privatization of Iran has been going extremely slowly and the economy is still heavily controlled by the central authority. They on paper suggested things 15-20 years ago that they have been slow to adopt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (13 children) No but being slow because you refuse to adopt the liberalizing policies is an indication that you aren’t serious about being liberal. It’s like suggesting China is serious about socialism when they have a stock market and income inequality is widening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (13 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (12 children) Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization. Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism. You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (14 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (13 children) No but being slow because you refuse to adopt the liberalizing policies is an indication that you aren’t serious about being liberal. It’s like suggesting China is serious about socialism when they have a stock market and income inequality is widening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (13 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (12 children) Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization. Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism. You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (13 children) No but being slow because you refuse to adopt the liberalizing policies is an indication that you aren’t serious about being liberal. It’s like suggesting China is serious about socialism when they have a stock market and income inequality is widening. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (13 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (12 children) Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization. Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism. You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (13 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (12 children) Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization. Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism. You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (12 children) Of they aren’t making the change to permit liberalism then it does matter and currently my understanding is the state is dragging theor feet on privatization. Chinese workers do not control the means of production and there is a growing wealth inequality. The PRC is simply lying about their pursuits of socialism. You probably shouldn’t be talking about any nation given you have trouble grasping hiw “All but not really all” means not all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) There was growing wealth inequality, while at the same time all boats were rising. But now wealth inequality is shrinking, and all boats are still rising. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (5 children) Well 4 years ago it was shrinking. How about post-COVID? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (4 children) Maybe there’s hard data for that somewhere—I dunno—but since COVID, the Chinese state intentionally popped their housing construction bubble and made the capitalists take the hit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) They didn’t intentionally pop this bubble. It popped and they have done everything in their power to limit the damage. China might not be forthright about their policies but they do seem to be interested in preventing social collapse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Do you think we pull these things out of our butts? Wikipedia: Three red lines EAC Int. Consulting, ~2022: Three Red Lines Policy – Regulating China’s Real Estate Developers Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2024: Real estate inflection point approaching? The Three Red Lines Policy in China and enterprise valuation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) No, I am saying the crash of Evergrande was in no way a planned or negotiated event. Everyone knew there was trouble but no one “popped” it intentionally. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Three red lines was introduced in Aug. 2020. The collapse started in Sept. 2021. It was a centrally planned, managed collapse, with the intent of making the capitalists take the hit instead of the working class. It was very unlike the 2008 one in the US, where no orthodox economist saw it coming, and the government was caught with its pants down, and it ratfucked working class homeowners to save the private banks, who had written bad mortgages that they knew couldn’t be paid. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) “ Chinese workers do control the means of production through public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy, the large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. “ No, they do not. Try looking at what is listed on the exchanges sometime. It might surprise you. It’s false to claim workers control the means of production when an investor class and investment banks exist. Im not presuming to know socialist “theory” better than those that choose to accept it but there are actual realities that most leftists actively avoid because it makes their claims invalid. In this case an investor class having been created since the revolution is a sign of failure. Finally you made a claim of all which ypu then made exceptions to that made the claim of “all” factually incorrect. You want to debate theory when I keep pointing out that “all of them but not really all of them” loterally means not all of them. As your claim that I reject outright relies on “all” your claim is not correct. Everyone who is “explaining” things is over looking that you said “not all” means “all” Sorry that your logic is not as solid or valid as you thought in this case. Again please remember your beliefs are not facts and much of what marxists claim has not been proven. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Except factually speaking, China has increase wealth inequality since their initial revolution and again in the cultural revolution so it really appears like they are abandoning socialism and giving it lip service like the USA is abandoning liberalism as a whole. You are ignoring realities to make it fit the propaganda you have accepted from the Chinese media/propaganda sphere. Hey does the state, billionaires, or the working classes own the press in China? The fact is kiddo. You have accepted propaganda and I am forcing you to confront the hypocrisy and inaccuracy within the notions you claim inappropriately as fact. Nothing I have said is incorrect unless te only permitted perspective is one that wholly accepts leftist theories as truth. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago I think the point of diminishing returns was 👈 back there somewhere. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 child) This starts with you not getting that “all” means 100% not 100% with exceptions. Those backong your claims aee those that also do not see the numbers argument I was making and most seem to uncritically accept the propaganda you have accepted, so why would I listen to a larger number of people who aren’t getting it? If one person or 100 people claim the earth is the center of the solar system are you any more likely to accept that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. Ok 100% of nations If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways. Ok so there are exceptions that make it not observable in all nations only those that have met specific situations (presuming any of the claims are valid which has never been demonstrated to be the case). It’s A or B. It cannot be observable in all capitalist systems if it has not happened in most and likely cannot happen in them ever. That means the presumption is not inherently valid like you are treating it. You are treating your opinions as fact. Others here are doing the same. No one has been able to provide anything to support this. They only engage in ad hominem or complete misunderstandings of the claim. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) The Iranian government has a very heavy hand in that economy and economic freedoms don’t exist like they do in capitalust economies. Many of us are socialists, and we don’t take issue with a state constraining the capitalist class’ economic freedom. If you live in a neoliberal hellscape like most of us, you ought to want it more constrained, too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago Im not arguing whether it us acceptable for the state to restrain private industry, but if you are claiming that Iran is liberal they cannot do this to the extent they currently are doing. My point is Iran is not a liberal nation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago Im not arguing whether it us acceptable for the state to restrain private industry, but if you are claiming that Iran is liberal they cannot do this to the extent they currently are doing. My point is Iran is not a liberal nation permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* If you despise my assertion You put a lot of superficial 'I'm smart' affectation into your posts for a vapid racist permalink fedilink source parent