Good luck convincing voters to build/buy enough housing for everybody in the country that would rather rent than own.
Or, alternatively, we abolish the landlords, and collectivize the housing. It’s already built, so we wouldn’t need to build or buy more immediately. I could see an actual populist(not Trump lol) running on that platform and winning in a landslide.
Ok well I don’t think there is a chance in hell anybody runs on that platform in the USA and gets anywhere close to winning.
Well, no candidate from the two major parties would be able to get support from their landlord and wall street donors. I’ll agree to that.
Historically, many of the largest left wing movements that gained power, and found success had the abolition of landlords as a core plank of their platform.
That the very idea of it sounds ridiculous or fanciful to Americans is due to quite a few factors. I don’t blame you for feeling that way. It’s been nearly completely erased as an option from our collective psyche.
2 Likes
Honest question: have any of these left wing movements gained power without a violent overthrow of the current system?
Landlords are some of the most violent people on earth. That’s how they enforce their will. So, yeah the China and Russia, well I’m sure you know what happened there.
The left movements that promised land reform, once elected, usually get the coup done on them by the CIA. If not, the US just straight up invades them. Although sometimes for a change of pace France does the coup or invasion.
Arbenz in Guatemala was elected, then violently overthrown by US backed forces.
Allende was elected in Chile. He was a marxist but I don’t think he was explicitly on team #abolish landlords, but he was going to nationalize their mineral extraction industry, iirc.
Aristide was elected twice as president of Haiti. Got the coup treatment twice.
Francisco Franco led a coup that turned into a civil war against the democratically elected left government of Spain.
That’s just off the top of my head though.
3 Likes
Yeah I see you posting this but this isn’t actually a reason why.
Your argument giving absolutely zero credit for value generation to the person who funded the creation of that value with assets they already had could be applied to anyone anywhere in the economy and is super arbitrary. You also seem to have picked out landlords as some special class of asset holders in capitalism that are extra evil somehow. I still don’t see it.
If you’re going to use Donald Sterling (You should have used Kushner) as a stand in for all landlords then I get to use Mao/Stalin/Pol Pot as my stand in for land reformers.
Look I gotta be real with you you’re advocating for the fully tanky land reform package and that’s the process that directly led to most of the major human rights violations carried out by the left in the 20th century. It’s been done and it killed hundreds of millions of people.
Politely man you’ve got absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I’m actually embarrassed for you. I knew I was going to be embarrassed for you when you prefaced all of this by saying Missiledog put it better.
Get newer and better ideas to champion ASAP. This one is a dog.
Let me help actually: Instead of saying landlords are the problem say that you want Fannie and Freddie to start giving mortgages direct to people and block them from using credit scores. Not for profit easily available mortgages. Now no one needs to rent if what they really want to do is own.
Now you’ll still get the same exact level of pushback from the people you hate so much (slumlords) because this would be predictably terrible for them, but they can’t attach you to the cultural revolution the khmer rouge or fucking Stalin.
If you want a capitalist boogie man I strongly suggest latching onto hating banksters instead of landlords too. Hedge funds (some of them), investment banks (all of them), and private equity (all of them x1000 I hate these guys more than you hate land lords) are all better targets. There are way too many decent landlords who own like 4-5 units tops and invested their retirement into it. They’re way too sympathetic. There are no sympathetic private equity people.
Land Reform is an old economic idea from the industrial revolution era where people still thought of land (particularly agricultural land) as the primary source of wealth. That hasn’t been true for some time. I’m way more worried about who controls the intellectual property in 2020 than I am with who controls the land. We have an affordability crisis in the housing market in the US and the solution to that is to 1) get rid of zoning laws that prevent more dense development and 2) build more units in the 100-200k range even if it takes small per unit subsidies to make them pencil out. You’re blaming the landlords for something that they benefit from but don’t actually cause.
1 Like
https://twitter.com/RickPaulas/status/1350090039968063490?s=20
https://twitter.com/OsitaNwanevu/status/1350090982352678917?s=20
https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1350079442488590337?s=20
2 Likes
I’m going to let loose here.
Andrew Yang isn’t a visionary. He’s an opportunist. Chapo pegged him perfectly when they called him the Reddit candidate: UBI as savior, has thoughts on circumcision, thinks we don’t listen enough to what boomer diner patrons in Ohio have to say about why they don’t vote Democrat. HE’LL USE POWERPOINT IN THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.
JFC. Imagine a “visionary” having a vision for changing the SOTU address and having it be something other than 'idk, maybe I just won’t do it".
I’m surprised I haven’t seen him talk about there being REAL ISSUES TO DISCUSS regarding transgender women participating in sports. Maybe I just missed it.
Andrew Yang is the sort of Democrat who feels he’s been owned when Trump supporters whip out “virtue signalling”.
Want to know how I know that Andrew Yang shouldn’t be trusted to have his UBI vision be about economic justice? He spent more than exactly 0 seconds on the question* of how it is “paid for” and the answer was about a type of tax. A special tax. You’ve probably never heard about it, but man, its amazing. But more on that later.
You know how untold millions of dollars year after year are spent by the wealthy lobbying to lower the taxes that the current system has them pay? You know how the number one priority of every GOP administration going back to the founding of the modern conservative movement has been to pass laws lowering or eliminating those taxes and ensuring the IRS lacks the resources to go after the rich for tax evasion? That’s all been a complete waste on every level: the money to lobbyists, the money to campaigns, the “political capital”. These idiots all along had no reason to do any of that! All the “GOP Lowers Taxes on Top 1%” headlines that resulted were all for nothing. Hell, if anything, the smart thing would be to raise the rate on all these taxes, right? Every tax on rich people the US government has ever enacted has raised zero revenue but dontcha know that because we now have the Asian Math Genius (just joking that’s sort of offensive lol–no wait not joking its a useful stereotype–yes joking, but actually not joking MAYBE WHO KNOWS! lol smiley face) ANDREW MOTHERFUCKING YANG we’ll have the ultimate tax on the rich that cannot ever under any circumstances be avoided unlike all the taxes that for inexplicable reasons all this money and time and reputations are wasted lowering or getting rid of for no reason.
*Just kidding there was no question. It didn’t need to be asked because Andrew Yang, a guy who just is so goll-darned concerned with solving problems and saving the world is two steps ahead of you. HEY I’VE ALWAYS CONSIDERED MY IDEOLOGY TO BE DO THE GOOD THINGS TO MAKE THINGS BETTER AND IMPROVE SOCIETY IN WAYS THAT ARE SMART AND GOOD, YANG IS JUST LIKE ME! (How the fuck did you not only type that out, post it, not immediately edit it out, but not even slink away in shame from this forum after posting that, Boredsocial?)
4 Likes
I’ve read this rant twice and found absolutely zero actual substantial criticism in it. Let me read it a third time maybe it’ll jump out at me.
EDIT: Nope it’s just I heard words on Chapo. Don’t single source your takes from those guys dude.
Well, I certainly don’t have a critique as substantial as “virtue signalling”. I remember that one was a crushing blow for you.
Your entire critique is disliking the guy for… proposing that we tax the entire economy up front and then spend that money on an extremely generous welfare state.
I can’t help you get it. I really can’t. You don’t get that the power point at the state of the union being ground breaking is the joke. It’s a joke about how old our current political leadership is and you’re acting like that’s some big dunk you got and you look silly because you don’t even get the joke. Yes obviously. He’s promising to be a reasonably competent caught up with the times technocrat… which if you follow the math ends up being pretty fucking far left.
The only good news I have for far leftists is that right now the math works in your favor. Which means that you’re about to take an influx of mission driven and very talented people… who are not going to give a fuck about your ideology because they’re only there because it works.
I want to be clear here you just took a giant content free shit on the economics that is leading a new influx of talent, money, and power to the left. You better hope you’re wrong. These explanations work in real life. That is soooooo much better than whatever warmed late 1800’s origin tanky bullshit the ‘true leftists’ are slinging on this board. I don’t like philosophies that have been tried repeatedly but nobody has managed ‘execute it correctly’.
The guy is just head down focused on what the problems are and how they could be fixed. Which if I had to say I had an ideology is certainly mine.
You wrote that. Unless you’re on this guy’s payroll its one of the most self-owning two sentences I’ve seen written on the internet. This is the political equivalent of asserting to a woman that you are good in bed.
Each time you use the term “tanky” you’re showing you don’t get what it refers to. (hint: its not an insult for being too far left.)
1 Like
A thousand a month is not generous its below the poverty level. Way below.
1 Like
No man I solve problems for a living by doing exactly that. Most of the productive hours of my life are spent trying to solve why some random thing doesn’t work the way it should and figuring out how to make it work that way. That’s where all of the money in trucking is. Solving problems and figuring out how to get stuff from A to B as efficiently as possible.
Tankie is a sarcastic term for people who feel compelled to do things like defend fucking land reform. They’re the left’s answer to dumbasses on the right who say ‘well actually’ when someone says something bad about Hitler. I don’t give a shit how you use the term that’s how I, and most other people I know, use it.
My spell correct says Tankie is incorrect but you’re making fun of Tanky so clearly autocorrect is not all knowing when it comes to mild slurs for far leftists.
But hey you got my number dude. Just absolutely wrecking me in here.
What irritates me so much about capitalism vs socialism debates is that the are treated like they’re arguments about philosophy when they should be arguments about project management. The next steps are blindingly obvious if you just set the ideology aside and do the work of just evaluating what you know and what you can actually do about it.
We are at point A. We need to figure out how to actually get to point B. With the constraints and resources we actually have.
You fundamentally misunderstand what a tanky is. It has nothing to do with how you spell it.
Its not someone who is so far left its ridiculous. Its someone who defends highly authoritarian regimes no matter what they do as long as they are communist in name, primarily under the guise that–unlike the decadent capitalist west–they are anti-imperialist. The term is derived from the word “tank” as a reference to Soviet tanks entering Hungary and later Czechoslovakia. “Tankies” continued to insist that the USSR was not imperialist.
It literally has nothing to do with being a bit frisky with respect to land reform.
1 Like
Nah man. Land reform is the project that Mao’s China, Stalin’s USSR, and the Khmer Rouge were all working on when they got REALLY crazy. It’s also gone really poorly in Africa. It’s not a viable way to fix the wealth inequality problem because it just moves power from one small group of people who have some societal restraints and limits to a new group of even more powerful people who generally are of similar type and quality to the people who currently exist in the White House. It doesn’t fucking work.
That doesn’t mean inequality isn’t a problem and that we don’t need to figure out how to fix our problems it means that time spent talking about the viability of land reform is time spent looking stupid. It makes you wonder why you even talk to the people you’re talking to when you’re arguing against it because it’s a waste of time and arguing for it is an absolutely massive red flag like claiming that the moon landing was faked.
You’re currently at the part where the right wing person tells you that if a person isn’t a card carrying member of the Nazi Party of Greater Illinois or the KKK you can’t call them a fascist.
I’m sorry, excuse me. I didn’t realize I was talking with someone who SOLVES PROBLEMS and INCREASES EFFICIENCY. I feel so silly.
4 Likes
What the fuck are you talking about?
We’ve gone from you misusing tanky in a few posts to now making assertions about…Zimbabwe? Man, you sure are owning my ZANU-PF supporting ass here.
I can’t tell you how surprised I am that the guy who feels owned when the “virtue signal” card is played has a hot take about land reform in Africa.
1 Like
An example of a tankie in 2020: someone who looks at the PRC in 2020 and insists that their economy is a model of what can be achieved via socialism. The Chinese regions of Xinjiang and Tibet are prospering under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.
An example of not a tankie in 2020: someone who sees the huge swaths of personal wealth in the PRC that have been achieved purely through right-place-at-right-time property ownership and thinks that state action should be taken to reduce the cost of housing and reduce incentives to buy apartments with the primary intention of renting them out.
You have this completely backwards.
1 Like