Your Politics are Stupid

Rich people shit is when I had to yell at my classmates that we are not spending tens of thousands of dollars ON BALLOONS for our prom when we had a DJ to pay and their response to me was "thats only 700 dollars per person."

Rich people shit is when I went to go tutor one of my classmates little brothers who was struggling with history and it took him 10 minutes to go get his tablet from his bedroom and come back to the kitchen table because their house was that big, which was being cleaned by a live-in maid while their private chef made us snacks the entire time I was tutoring him. And then their parents paid me 500 bucks and told me "sorry I seem to have misplaced my other wallet, is this enough? Its not a lot :(("

Rich people shit is when the other teachers kids and I breezed through school with high GPAs because all of our peers had so much money that they never had to care about getting into a good university or having careers or budgeting or anything, so they never tried.

Rich people shit is when youre invited to a little get together on the weekends and get told to bring an overnight bag because their definition of a little get together is an overnight yacht trip. And then you get there and find out that your middle class definition of what's needed for an overnight trip is VERY different from a rich persons definition of the same thing: you have some pajamas, clean underwear, toothpaste, and some soap and face wash, maybe some moisturizer. They bring half their wardrobes and designer personally-commissioned serums that cost more than your house and then tell you that youre "just so quaint."

This Tumblr post is the first time someone has explained to me *why* I couldn’t feed them before those instances.

every single time i have had to say, "i understand that if he had food or water, he could aspirate it into his lungs under anesthesia. i am not lying to you." THEN someone would make a little note and i would stop being repeatedly asked.

not a single time was that risk explained to me. the only reason it came up was because i already knew. i still don't understand why it isn't standard pre-op counseling or pre-op check information, when me as a parent acknowledging the actual risk also put THE MEDICAL STAFF at ease because i conveyed that i had informed understanding as reason to not lie about giving my kid food.

For a basic example, I've had a doctor tell someone to fast by saying, "Don't eat anything for 24 hours." If that patient had assumed that it was thus okay to drink stuff, that could be very dangerous. I work tech support, and I see similar things constantly.

You need to add a whole lot more infrastructure to determine what the "worth" of those unrealized gains are. Making a government program bigger rarely results in more efficiency.

Also, this gives the government a strong incentive to over-estimate the unrealized gains for more tax revenue.

Because they think money should be in their hand rather than the hands of the people who hold those things.

Sadly however, what most people don't realize is the fact that when you text unrealized games not only does the government get to overestimate what's something is worth to charge you the most they possibly can. They will also continue to find ways to charge you on it because if you think that they're going to stop at a tax like this you're out of your mind. And the one fun part about stocks or other on realized gains, like solid assets like houses and cars etc, because those are, in fact, on realized games because they are worth money in estimate. Is the fact that eventually those people are going to have to start selling things off to pay for these games that they have not received which means they are paying taxes on money that doesn't technically exist.

A plane filled with Iraqi Jewish refugees photographed on arrival at Lod Airport outside Tel Aviv in early 1951 (Teddy Brauner, GPO).

Today, November 30th, is Jewish Refugee day or Yom HaPlitim (יום הפליטים), and we remember their stories.

Their arrival came amid a mass exodus triggered by escalating persecution in Iraq, including violent pogroms such as the 1941 Farhud, during which Jewish homes and businesses were looted and many civilians including children were murdered and wounded. Jewish girls were publicly raped. The community also faced targeted assassinations, public executions such as the infamous Baghdad hangings, and a series of bombings in 1950–1951 aimed at Iraq's Jewish community. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Jews in Iraq were frequently arrested on fabricated charges, tortured in prison, and subjected to the banning of communal, religious and political activity. These pressures finally peaked in state-sanctioned expropriation, revocation of citizenship, and forced expatriation.

In 1951, 120,000 Iraqi Jews were issued passports for the sole purpose of emigration known as passports of No Return. A prerequisite was the waiving of all property and monetary belongings.

By the 1930s, Jews made up roughly a quarter of Baghdad’s total population, and by 1945 around 135,000 Jews lived across Iraq. Today only a handful remain.

This end of the millenia old Babylonian Jewish exile is referred to as Sant al-Tasqit.

The Iraqis were serious at that time; they addressed the problem at its root.

Today, look at the Iranians: they tolerated the Jewish communities of Iran, granting them the same rights and freedoms as other Iranians, and what did the Jews do ?

They participated in and collaborated with Israel against Iran.

It's the same everywhere, the Jews will always act in THEIR interests to the detriment of the natives.

Iran has never tried to screw over my country and no Iranian has ever called me goy.

While the kikes...

And I don't give a damn whether Iran is a theocracy or a dictatorship, it's not my country and I'm for non-intervention in a country's internal politics.

As well as for the right of Jews to return home, in a furnace then.

I prefer to debate with people who say what they think, rather than with cowards who feign remorse, solely for the purpose of being on the "right side".

Uprightness, honesty, off with the masks!

Only in this way can we have a calm and constructive debate.

Their misdeeds are numerous, and there is no shortage of evidence.

Showing patience with Jews is a grave mistake, a mistake I do not make.

If they must be exterminated to the last one, so be it.

If this puts an end to the spread of their ideas and projects, which are anything but beneficial (Gender/LGBT theory, endless immigration, endless war, etc...)

Regarding Iran, I am not Iranian; the fate of Iran belongs to them.

If they must be exterminated to the last one, so be it.

Total Kikes Death.

Simple to understand.

No more interference from them in each other's affairs.

Morally, it's questionable, certainly.

But I don't care.

Certainly, children should not have to suffer the consequences of the choices made by their parents or their governments.

But their harmful practices have been going on for a long time and it cannot be said that, THE JEWS, have no qualms whatsoever, nor the slightest qualms about murdering the children of the goyim.

Or to rape, plunder, steal.

And that is what they instill in their children, who will do as their parents do, and so on.

It goes without saying that one should have no scruples, pity, or even less mercy towards this race of vipers.

Without even blinking.

You can shove your moral lessons where the sun don't shine.

It will be them, without shame.

But it is very different when it comes to the survival and prosperity of one's family or people.

The Jews have had numerous opportunities to break this vicious cycle, but they have not done so.

It goes without saying that not all Jews are bloodthirsty monsters, but I don't have superpowers, I can't know who is good or bad, so I make generalizations, like everyone else, it's human.

For more than a millennium they have followed their elites in their messianic delusions, always with their share of massacres.

And I'm supposed to be the villain, the bad guy, because I support a movement that lasted a little more than 5 years in the human history ?

They ask me to have qualms about this tribe of inbred retards, who cut off the tip of their dicks.

Who's laughs on our misfortunes ?

Who subjected my race, like others, "the goyim", to the worst possible horrors?

Who are you, you asshole, to lecture me?

Every day, in newspapers, on TV, radio, social media, etc... These fucking Jews rejoice in our misfortunes, rapes, murders and other joys, and I'm supposed to be ashamed?

Dude, I don't give a fuck about your so-called "moral superiority".

You're a piece of shit, that's all you are.

Dude, I don't give a fuck about your so-called "moral superiority".

In the blue corner we have @generallemarc representing classical liberalism and the western values of individualism that have built modern society.

In the black corner we have @furansunokamikaze representing the forces of old school tribalism that have caused almost every religious and ethnic war in history.

Who will win this grudge match?

a source explaining how home ownership worked in cuba after the revolution:

https://reimaginerpe.org/19-1/hamberg

For 50 years the great majority of Cuban households have legally owned their homes as a form of “personal property,” but with some limitations.

.

After the Cuban revolution in 1959, evictions were halted, most rents were reduced and urban land speculation was largely controlled. Through the 1960 Urban Reform Law, tenants became homeowners by amortizing the purchase price of their units through rents. Landlords and other property holders were allowed to keep their own home as well as a second vacation home. State-built housing was offered as long-term “leaseholding,” with rents set at 10 percent of family income. Private renting was prohibited. In addition, vacant units confiscated from emigrants were distributed to people in need, and the Cuban lottery was transformed into a short-lived vehicle for financing new housing. Residents of poor urban housing remained as long-term leaseholders, but by the mid-1960s, no longer paid rent.

.

The 1984 (and 1988) General Housing Laws converted most leaseholders into homeowners, legalized most illegal and ambiguous tenure situations of tens of thousands of self-builders and others, permitted free-market private rentals and sales of roof-rights, and fostered self-building by both individuals and newly permitted housing cooperatives (which never got off the ground). The only groups not converted into homeowners were residents of tenements and shantytowns, who remained rent-free leaseholders, and occupants of units directly “linked” to workplaces.

.

By the early 1990s, more than 85 percent of Cuban households were homeowners, paying little or nothing for their units except for maintenance, repair and utilities. There were no mortgages or land and property taxes. Financing for purchases of units or repair was considered a loan, not a mortgage, and therefore dwellings were not used as collateral.

article 22 of the 1976 Cuban constitution is also relevant:

Like, do you understand that Cuba. And the USSR. Are two entirely different nations with different policies and viewpoints, even if they vaguely held to the same general political model?

I had to just comment here because jesus fuck you're just not a good person.

second: it's not true of the Soviet states either:

Most apartments in the Soviet Union were distributed by the state on the basis of waiting lists. But there were other paths to becoming a homeowner as well.

.

homeowner

.

jesus fuck you're just not a good person.

>and that only capitalism has ever allowed anyone pleasurable luxuries.

????

The propaganda blog's source? Planners Network. A literal propaganda group. The far left constantly does self-referential BS to sound legitimate.

https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=umiclr

from the extremely anti-communist article "Castro Systematic Assault on Private Ownership In Cuba":

That very same month, the Castro regime enacted an urban version of the Act, which also stripped constitutional protection from property and contract rights in yet another important societal area. Article 2A of the Urban Reform Act specifically prohibited all types of leasing and sub-leasing agreements. The Urban Reform Act went beyond proscribing any future leases. The Act rendered all existing leases of urban property null and void. Through the Urban Reform Act, the Castro regime ordered the compulsory sale of urban houses and apartments at prices fixed by the state. In order for any Cuban citizen to sell or transfer a house or apartment, the consent of the Council of Urban Reform was now required.

In addition, rents for government-built housing were capped at no more than 10% of household income. Between 1959 and 1988, nearly 1.4 million new housing units were built in Cuba. However, about half of this total housing stock is considered to be substandard

this article makes a constant effort to put an anti-communist spin on things, (considered substandard by who? in comparison to what?) but even it concedes that the Urban Reform Act cracked down on landlordism, and, significantly, acknowledges that this happened through the compulsory sale of these rental units (it plays coy about who they were sold to but the answer is "the tenants") rather than the housing simply becoming government property. and we can find numerous sources confirming Cubas current high homeownership rate:

Do you think anti-commie Yanks all think capitalism and communism are the only two economic systems that have ever existed?

@syabm

well, not *all* anti-commie yanks, but i've certainly met a lot of anti-communists who thought all societies in history could be described as being somewhere on a spectrum between capitalism and socialism, on the basis of thinking "capitalism is when there's trade, socialism is when there's state violence"- leading to the absurdity of people declaring ancient Rome to be either capitalist or socialist (largely on the basis of whether the person speaking likes Rome or not) when in reality of course ancient Rome pre-dated either capitalism or socialism.

edit: perfect example of the kind of thing i'm talking about, here's someone claiming feudalism is socialism:

here's another obvious disparity:

Wow, I wonder what influx the US has had in recent decades that was suddenly vastly expanded in the last decade and the reasons behind that.

also, china has seen a massive influx of foreigners, and has not seen a comparable rise in malnutrition

As China’s development took off, the country also has attracted growing numbers of foreign-born migrants and has emerged as an immigrant destination country,

First off, reducing the rate doesn't change the fact of the ones already here. Believe it or not, people keep eating. I know that's difficult for proponents of regimes that starved more people than any others in history to understand.

Second, Mexico? Illegal immigration from there has been a problem for decades, but has not remotely been the driver of the big spike. Third, visits are rather different than immigration. Your second visahq article doesn't even exist.

Fourth, if it was endemic to the population as a whole, it would naturally affect children highly. With child starvation all but non-existent, it's just not true.

deportation does, and there's been massive deportation campaigns.

Second, Mexico? Illegal immigration from there has been a problem for decades, but has not remotely been the driver of the big spike.

the other countries which you could claim are "the driver of the big spike" are largely also capitalist

Third, visits are rather different than immigration. Your second visahq article doesn't even exist.

my apologies, I seem to have mangled the link. here it is:

Fourth, if it was endemic to the population as a whole, it would naturally affect children highly. With child starvation all but non-existent, it's just not true.

okay this is great. so, to be clear, if the child malnutrition rate is also going up significantly during that time period, we can agree that it isn't just driven by immigration, yes? okay great. i'm glad we can agree on that.

so without further ado:

Wtf are you defining as capitalist?

And your Chinese immigration link...

There are more illegal immigrants in single cities in the US than immigrants in the entirety of China. So no, not even remotely similar.

As for child malnutrition, you missed the difference between stunting and starvation (wasting). Stunting will go up with illegal immigration because children that are already malnourished arrive, and stunting takes a long time to recover from, and can be permanent. Starvation, wasting in the report, does not go up significantly because those who are terminal die, contributing to the spike in mortality and thus no longer contributing to the starving statistic. Those who aren't recover relatively quickly due to getting food.

so do you think the us government's reports of over a million people self-deporting is inaccurate?

also regarding "tens of millions":

on that scale the reported number of people leaving should absolutely have an impact

Wtf are you defining as capitalist?

do you think El Salvador is socialist.

As for child malnutrition, you missed the difference between stunting and starvation (wasting). [blah blah blah blah blah]

okay perhaps you will like this chart more:

And, like I said and my source showed, childhood starvation is basically non-existent in US.

not what your source says:

Also, I like how you dismiss all the explanation of the malnutrition data just to show me that exactly what I said it would show is shown. As I said, stunting and mortality go up while starvation does not. Here's the bit you're trying to ignore:

these charts end at 2017, 2018, or at best 2020.

stunting and mortality go up while starvation does not

mortality due to malnutrition is what starvation is dumbass.

so your argument is, what, people come across ro the usa (usually from other capitalist countries) and then die immediately after arrivinh due to pre-existing malnutrition? that's an extremely stupid "explanation".

Alright, I did misread the total number.

I think to have "misread" anything you would have had to have read anything, and I don't think you have.

But the current deportation campaign doesn't actually matter for these statistics. Y'know, given that they end before it begins.

it's relevant to the more recent statistics from this article, which you didn't read when I linked it earlier in the thread because you're illiterate:

a source explaining how home ownership worked in cuba after the revolution:

https://reimaginerpe.org/19-1/hamberg

For 50 years the great majority of Cuban households have legally owned their homes as a form of “personal property,” but with some limitations.

.

After the Cuban revolution in 1959, evictions were halted, most rents were reduced and urban land speculation was largely controlled. Through the 1960 Urban Reform Law, tenants became homeowners by amortizing the purchase price of their units through rents. Landlords and other property holders were allowed to keep their own home as well as a second vacation home. State-built housing was offered as long-term “leaseholding,” with rents set at 10 percent of family income. Private renting was prohibited. In addition, vacant units confiscated from emigrants were distributed to people in need, and the Cuban lottery was transformed into a short-lived vehicle for financing new housing. Residents of poor urban housing remained as long-term leaseholders, but by the mid-1960s, no longer paid rent.

.

The 1984 (and 1988) General Housing Laws converted most leaseholders into homeowners, legalized most illegal and ambiguous tenure situations of tens of thousands of self-builders and others, permitted free-market private rentals and sales of roof-rights, and fostered self-building by both individuals and newly permitted housing cooperatives (which never got off the ground). The only groups not converted into homeowners were residents of tenements and shantytowns, who remained rent-free leaseholders, and occupants of units directly “linked” to workplaces.

.

By the early 1990s, more than 85 percent of Cuban households were homeowners, paying little or nothing for their units except for maintenance, repair and utilities. There were no mortgages or land and property taxes. Financing for purchases of units or repair was considered a loan, not a mortgage, and therefore dwellings were not used as collateral.

article 22 of the 1976 Cuban constitution is also relevant:

Like, do you understand that Cuba. And the USSR. Are two entirely different nations with different policies and viewpoints, even if they vaguely held to the same general political model?

I had to just comment here because jesus fuck you're just not a good person.

second: it's not true of the Soviet states either:

Most apartments in the Soviet Union were distributed by the state on the basis of waiting lists. But there were other paths to becoming a homeowner as well.

.

homeowner

.

jesus fuck you're just not a good person.

>and that only capitalism has ever allowed anyone pleasurable luxuries.

????

The propaganda blog's source? Planners Network. A literal propaganda group. The far left constantly does self-referential BS to sound legitimate.

https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=umiclr

from the extremely anti-communist article "Castro Systematic Assault on Private Ownership In Cuba":

That very same month, the Castro regime enacted an urban version of the Act, which also stripped constitutional protection from property and contract rights in yet another important societal area. Article 2A of the Urban Reform Act specifically prohibited all types of leasing and sub-leasing agreements. The Urban Reform Act went beyond proscribing any future leases. The Act rendered all existing leases of urban property null and void. Through the Urban Reform Act, the Castro regime ordered the compulsory sale of urban houses and apartments at prices fixed by the state. In order for any Cuban citizen to sell or transfer a house or apartment, the consent of the Council of Urban Reform was now required.

In addition, rents for government-built housing were capped at no more than 10% of household income. Between 1959 and 1988, nearly 1.4 million new housing units were built in Cuba. However, about half of this total housing stock is considered to be substandard

this article makes a constant effort to put an anti-communist spin on things, (considered substandard by who? in comparison to what?) but even it concedes that the Urban Reform Act cracked down on landlordism, and, significantly, acknowledges that this happened through the compulsory sale of these rental units (it plays coy about who they were sold to but the answer is "the tenants") rather than the housing simply becoming government property. and we can find numerous sources confirming Cubas current high homeownership rate:

Do you think anti-commie Yanks all think capitalism and communism are the only two economic systems that have ever existed?

@syabm

well, not *all* anti-commie yanks, but i've certainly met a lot of anti-communists who thought all societies in history could be described as being somewhere on a spectrum between capitalism and socialism, on the basis of thinking "capitalism is when there's trade, socialism is when there's state violence"- leading to the absurdity of people declaring ancient Rome to be either capitalist or socialist (largely on the basis of whether the person speaking likes Rome or not) when in reality of course ancient Rome pre-dated either capitalism or socialism.

edit: perfect example of the kind of thing i'm talking about, here's someone claiming feudalism is socialism:

here's another obvious disparity:

Wow, I wonder what influx the US has had in recent decades that was suddenly vastly expanded in the last decade and the reasons behind that.

also, china has seen a massive influx of foreigners, and has not seen a comparable rise in malnutrition

As China’s development took off, the country also has attracted growing numbers of foreign-born migrants and has emerged as an immigrant destination country,

First off, reducing the rate doesn't change the fact of the ones already here. Believe it or not, people keep eating. I know that's difficult for proponents of regimes that starved more people than any others in history to understand.

Second, Mexico? Illegal immigration from there has been a problem for decades, but has not remotely been the driver of the big spike. Third, visits are rather different than immigration. Your second visahq article doesn't even exist.

Fourth, if it was endemic to the population as a whole, it would naturally affect children highly. With child starvation all but non-existent, it's just not true.

deportation does, and there's been massive deportation campaigns.

Second, Mexico? Illegal immigration from there has been a problem for decades, but has not remotely been the driver of the big spike.

the other countries which you could claim are "the driver of the big spike" are largely also capitalist

Third, visits are rather different than immigration. Your second visahq article doesn't even exist.

my apologies, I seem to have mangled the link. here it is:

Fourth, if it was endemic to the population as a whole, it would naturally affect children highly. With child starvation all but non-existent, it's just not true.

okay this is great. so, to be clear, if the child malnutrition rate is also going up significantly during that time period, we can agree that it isn't just driven by immigration, yes? okay great. i'm glad we can agree on that.

so without further ado:

Wtf are you defining as capitalist?

And your Chinese immigration link...

There are more illegal immigrants in single cities in the US than immigrants in the entirety of China. So no, not even remotely similar.

As for child malnutrition, you missed the difference between stunting and starvation (wasting). Stunting will go up with illegal immigration because children that are already malnourished arrive, and stunting takes a long time to recover from, and can be permanent. Starvation, wasting in the report, does not go up significantly because those who are terminal die, contributing to the spike in mortality and thus no longer contributing to the starving statistic. Those who aren't recover relatively quickly due to getting food.

so do you think the us government's reports of over a million people self-deporting is inaccurate?

also regarding "tens of millions":

on that scale the reported number of people leaving should absolutely have an impact

Wtf are you defining as capitalist?

do you think El Salvador is socialist.

As for child malnutrition, you missed the difference between stunting and starvation (wasting). [blah blah blah blah blah]

okay perhaps you will like this chart more:

And, like I said and my source showed, childhood starvation is basically non-existent in US.

not what your source says:

Also, I like how you dismiss all the explanation of the malnutrition data just to show me that exactly what I said it would show is shown. As I said, stunting and mortality go up while starvation does not. Here's the bit you're trying to ignore:

a source explaining how home ownership worked in cuba after the revolution:

https://reimaginerpe.org/19-1/hamberg

For 50 years the great majority of Cuban households have legally owned their homes as a form of “personal property,” but with some limitations.

.

After the Cuban revolution in 1959, evictions were halted, most rents were reduced and urban land speculation was largely controlled. Through the 1960 Urban Reform Law, tenants became homeowners by amortizing the purchase price of their units through rents. Landlords and other property holders were allowed to keep their own home as well as a second vacation home. State-built housing was offered as long-term “leaseholding,” with rents set at 10 percent of family income. Private renting was prohibited. In addition, vacant units confiscated from emigrants were distributed to people in need, and the Cuban lottery was transformed into a short-lived vehicle for financing new housing. Residents of poor urban housing remained as long-term leaseholders, but by the mid-1960s, no longer paid rent.

.

The 1984 (and 1988) General Housing Laws converted most leaseholders into homeowners, legalized most illegal and ambiguous tenure situations of tens of thousands of self-builders and others, permitted free-market private rentals and sales of roof-rights, and fostered self-building by both individuals and newly permitted housing cooperatives (which never got off the ground). The only groups not converted into homeowners were residents of tenements and shantytowns, who remained rent-free leaseholders, and occupants of units directly “linked” to workplaces.

.

By the early 1990s, more than 85 percent of Cuban households were homeowners, paying little or nothing for their units except for maintenance, repair and utilities. There were no mortgages or land and property taxes. Financing for purchases of units or repair was considered a loan, not a mortgage, and therefore dwellings were not used as collateral.

article 22 of the 1976 Cuban constitution is also relevant:

Like, do you understand that Cuba. And the USSR. Are two entirely different nations with different policies and viewpoints, even if they vaguely held to the same general political model?

I had to just comment here because jesus fuck you're just not a good person.

second: it's not true of the Soviet states either:

Most apartments in the Soviet Union were distributed by the state on the basis of waiting lists. But there were other paths to becoming a homeowner as well.

.

homeowner

.

jesus fuck you're just not a good person.

>and that only capitalism has ever allowed anyone pleasurable luxuries.

????

The propaganda blog's source? Planners Network. A literal propaganda group. The far left constantly does self-referential BS to sound legitimate.

https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=umiclr

from the extremely anti-communist article "Castro Systematic Assault on Private Ownership In Cuba":

That very same month, the Castro regime enacted an urban version of the Act, which also stripped constitutional protection from property and contract rights in yet another important societal area. Article 2A of the Urban Reform Act specifically prohibited all types of leasing and sub-leasing agreements. The Urban Reform Act went beyond proscribing any future leases. The Act rendered all existing leases of urban property null and void. Through the Urban Reform Act, the Castro regime ordered the compulsory sale of urban houses and apartments at prices fixed by the state. In order for any Cuban citizen to sell or transfer a house or apartment, the consent of the Council of Urban Reform was now required.

In addition, rents for government-built housing were capped at no more than 10% of household income. Between 1959 and 1988, nearly 1.4 million new housing units were built in Cuba. However, about half of this total housing stock is considered to be substandard

this article makes a constant effort to put an anti-communist spin on things, (considered substandard by who? in comparison to what?) but even it concedes that the Urban Reform Act cracked down on landlordism, and, significantly, acknowledges that this happened through the compulsory sale of these rental units (it plays coy about who they were sold to but the answer is "the tenants") rather than the housing simply becoming government property. and we can find numerous sources confirming Cubas current high homeownership rate:

Do you think anti-commie Yanks all think capitalism and communism are the only two economic systems that have ever existed?

@syabm

well, not *all* anti-commie yanks, but i've certainly met a lot of anti-communists who thought all societies in history could be described as being somewhere on a spectrum between capitalism and socialism, on the basis of thinking "capitalism is when there's trade, socialism is when there's state violence"- leading to the absurdity of people declaring ancient Rome to be either capitalist or socialist (largely on the basis of whether the person speaking likes Rome or not) when in reality of course ancient Rome pre-dated either capitalism or socialism.

edit: perfect example of the kind of thing i'm talking about, here's someone claiming feudalism is socialism:

here's another obvious disparity:

Wow, I wonder what influx the US has had in recent decades that was suddenly vastly expanded in the last decade and the reasons behind that.

also, china has seen a massive influx of foreigners, and has not seen a comparable rise in malnutrition

As China’s development took off, the country also has attracted growing numbers of foreign-born migrants and has emerged as an immigrant destination country,

First off, reducing the rate doesn't change the fact of the ones already here. Believe it or not, people keep eating. I know that's difficult for proponents of regimes that starved more people than any others in history to understand.

Second, Mexico? Illegal immigration from there has been a problem for decades, but has not remotely been the driver of the big spike. Third, visits are rather different than immigration. Your second visahq article doesn't even exist.

Fourth, if it was endemic to the population as a whole, it would naturally affect children highly. With child starvation all but non-existent, it's just not true.

deportation does, and there's been massive deportation campaigns.

Second, Mexico? Illegal immigration from there has been a problem for decades, but has not remotely been the driver of the big spike.

the other countries which you could claim are "the driver of the big spike" are largely also capitalist

Third, visits are rather different than immigration. Your second visahq article doesn't even exist.

my apologies, I seem to have mangled the link. here it is:

Fourth, if it was endemic to the population as a whole, it would naturally affect children highly. With child starvation all but non-existent, it's just not true.

okay this is great. so, to be clear, if the child malnutrition rate is also going up significantly during that time period, we can agree that it isn't just driven by immigration, yes? okay great. i'm glad we can agree on that.

so without further ado:

Wtf are you defining as capitalist?

And your Chinese immigration link...

There are more illegal immigrants in single cities in the US than immigrants in the entirety of China. So no, not even remotely similar.

As for child malnutrition, you missed the difference between stunting and starvation (wasting). Stunting will go up with illegal immigration because children that are already malnourished arrive, and stunting takes a long time to recover from, and can be permanent. Starvation, wasting in the report, does not go up significantly because those who are terminal die, contributing to the spike in mortality and thus no longer contributing to the starving statistic. Those who aren't recover relatively quickly due to getting food.

a source explaining how home ownership worked in cuba after the revolution:

https://reimaginerpe.org/19-1/hamberg

For 50 years the great majority of Cuban households have legally owned their homes as a form of “personal property,” but with some limitations.

.

After the Cuban revolution in 1959, evictions were halted, most rents were reduced and urban land speculation was largely controlled. Through the 1960 Urban Reform Law, tenants became homeowners by amortizing the purchase price of their units through rents. Landlords and other property holders were allowed to keep their own home as well as a second vacation home. State-built housing was offered as long-term “leaseholding,” with rents set at 10 percent of family income. Private renting was prohibited. In addition, vacant units confiscated from emigrants were distributed to people in need, and the Cuban lottery was transformed into a short-lived vehicle for financing new housing. Residents of poor urban housing remained as long-term leaseholders, but by the mid-1960s, no longer paid rent.

.

The 1984 (and 1988) General Housing Laws converted most leaseholders into homeowners, legalized most illegal and ambiguous tenure situations of tens of thousands of self-builders and others, permitted free-market private rentals and sales of roof-rights, and fostered self-building by both individuals and newly permitted housing cooperatives (which never got off the ground). The only groups not converted into homeowners were residents of tenements and shantytowns, who remained rent-free leaseholders, and occupants of units directly “linked” to workplaces.

.

By the early 1990s, more than 85 percent of Cuban households were homeowners, paying little or nothing for their units except for maintenance, repair and utilities. There were no mortgages or land and property taxes. Financing for purchases of units or repair was considered a loan, not a mortgage, and therefore dwellings were not used as collateral.

article 22 of the 1976 Cuban constitution is also relevant:

Like, do you understand that Cuba. And the USSR. Are two entirely different nations with different policies and viewpoints, even if they vaguely held to the same general political model?

I had to just comment here because jesus fuck you're just not a good person.

second: it's not true of the Soviet states either:

Most apartments in the Soviet Union were distributed by the state on the basis of waiting lists. But there were other paths to becoming a homeowner as well.

.

homeowner

.

jesus fuck you're just not a good person.

>and that only capitalism has ever allowed anyone pleasurable luxuries.

????

The propaganda blog's source? Planners Network. A literal propaganda group. The far left constantly does self-referential BS to sound legitimate.

https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=umiclr

from the extremely anti-communist article "Castro Systematic Assault on Private Ownership In Cuba":

That very same month, the Castro regime enacted an urban version of the Act, which also stripped constitutional protection from property and contract rights in yet another important societal area. Article 2A of the Urban Reform Act specifically prohibited all types of leasing and sub-leasing agreements. The Urban Reform Act went beyond proscribing any future leases. The Act rendered all existing leases of urban property null and void. Through the Urban Reform Act, the Castro regime ordered the compulsory sale of urban houses and apartments at prices fixed by the state. In order for any Cuban citizen to sell or transfer a house or apartment, the consent of the Council of Urban Reform was now required.

In addition, rents for government-built housing were capped at no more than 10% of household income. Between 1959 and 1988, nearly 1.4 million new housing units were built in Cuba. However, about half of this total housing stock is considered to be substandard

this article makes a constant effort to put an anti-communist spin on things, (considered substandard by who? in comparison to what?) but even it concedes that the Urban Reform Act cracked down on landlordism, and, significantly, acknowledges that this happened through the compulsory sale of these rental units (it plays coy about who they were sold to but the answer is "the tenants") rather than the housing simply becoming government property. and we can find numerous sources confirming Cubas current high homeownership rate:

Do you think anti-commie Yanks all think capitalism and communism are the only two economic systems that have ever existed?

@syabm

well, not *all* anti-commie yanks, but i've certainly met a lot of anti-communists who thought all societies in history could be described as being somewhere on a spectrum between capitalism and socialism, on the basis of thinking "capitalism is when there's trade, socialism is when there's state violence"- leading to the absurdity of people declaring ancient Rome to be either capitalist or socialist (largely on the basis of whether the person speaking likes Rome or not) when in reality of course ancient Rome pre-dated either capitalism or socialism.

edit: perfect example of the kind of thing i'm talking about, here's someone claiming feudalism is socialism:

here's another obvious disparity:

Wow, I wonder what influx the US has had in recent decades that was suddenly vastly expanded in the last decade and the reasons behind that.

also, china has seen a massive influx of foreigners, and has not seen a comparable rise in malnutrition

As China’s development took off, the country also has attracted growing numbers of foreign-born migrants and has emerged as an immigrant destination country,

First off, reducing the rate doesn't change the fact of the ones already here. Believe it or not, people keep eating. I know that's difficult for proponents of regimes that starved more people than any others in history to understand.

Second, Mexico? Illegal immigration from there has been a problem for decades, but has not remotely been the driver of the big spike. Third, visits are rather different than immigration. Your second visahq article doesn't even exist.

Fourth, if it was endemic to the population as a whole, it would naturally affect children highly. With child starvation all but non-existent, it's just not true.

a source explaining how home ownership worked in cuba after the revolution:

https://reimaginerpe.org/19-1/hamberg

For 50 years the great majority of Cuban households have legally owned their homes as a form of “personal property,” but with some limitations.

.

After the Cuban revolution in 1959, evictions were halted, most rents were reduced and urban land speculation was largely controlled. Through the 1960 Urban Reform Law, tenants became homeowners by amortizing the purchase price of their units through rents. Landlords and other property holders were allowed to keep their own home as well as a second vacation home. State-built housing was offered as long-term “leaseholding,” with rents set at 10 percent of family income. Private renting was prohibited. In addition, vacant units confiscated from emigrants were distributed to people in need, and the Cuban lottery was transformed into a short-lived vehicle for financing new housing. Residents of poor urban housing remained as long-term leaseholders, but by the mid-1960s, no longer paid rent.

.

The 1984 (and 1988) General Housing Laws converted most leaseholders into homeowners, legalized most illegal and ambiguous tenure situations of tens of thousands of self-builders and others, permitted free-market private rentals and sales of roof-rights, and fostered self-building by both individuals and newly permitted housing cooperatives (which never got off the ground). The only groups not converted into homeowners were residents of tenements and shantytowns, who remained rent-free leaseholders, and occupants of units directly “linked” to workplaces.

.

By the early 1990s, more than 85 percent of Cuban households were homeowners, paying little or nothing for their units except for maintenance, repair and utilities. There were no mortgages or land and property taxes. Financing for purchases of units or repair was considered a loan, not a mortgage, and therefore dwellings were not used as collateral.

article 22 of the 1976 Cuban constitution is also relevant:

Like, do you understand that Cuba. And the USSR. Are two entirely different nations with different policies and viewpoints, even if they vaguely held to the same general political model?

I had to just comment here because jesus fuck you're just not a good person.

second: it's not true of the Soviet states either:

Most apartments in the Soviet Union were distributed by the state on the basis of waiting lists. But there were other paths to becoming a homeowner as well.

.

homeowner

.

jesus fuck you're just not a good person.

>and that only capitalism has ever allowed anyone pleasurable luxuries.

????

The propaganda blog's source? Planners Network. A literal propaganda group. The far left constantly does self-referential BS to sound legitimate.

https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=umiclr

from the extremely anti-communist article "Castro Systematic Assault on Private Ownership In Cuba":

That very same month, the Castro regime enacted an urban version of the Act, which also stripped constitutional protection from property and contract rights in yet another important societal area. Article 2A of the Urban Reform Act specifically prohibited all types of leasing and sub-leasing agreements. The Urban Reform Act went beyond proscribing any future leases. The Act rendered all existing leases of urban property null and void. Through the Urban Reform Act, the Castro regime ordered the compulsory sale of urban houses and apartments at prices fixed by the state. In order for any Cuban citizen to sell or transfer a house or apartment, the consent of the Council of Urban Reform was now required.

In addition, rents for government-built housing were capped at no more than 10% of household income. Between 1959 and 1988, nearly 1.4 million new housing units were built in Cuba. However, about half of this total housing stock is considered to be substandard

this article makes a constant effort to put an anti-communist spin on things, (considered substandard by who? in comparison to what?) but even it concedes that the Urban Reform Act cracked down on landlordism, and, significantly, acknowledges that this happened through the compulsory sale of these rental units (it plays coy about who they were sold to but the answer is "the tenants") rather than the housing simply becoming government property. and we can find numerous sources confirming Cubas current high homeownership rate:

Do you think anti-commie Yanks all think capitalism and communism are the only two economic systems that have ever existed?

@syabm

well, not *all* anti-commie yanks, but i've certainly met a lot of anti-communists who thought all societies in history could be described as being somewhere on a spectrum between capitalism and socialism, on the basis of thinking "capitalism is when there's trade, socialism is when there's state violence"- leading to the absurdity of people declaring ancient Rome to be either capitalist or socialist (largely on the basis of whether the person speaking likes Rome or not) when in reality of course ancient Rome pre-dated either capitalism or socialism.

edit: perfect example of the kind of thing i'm talking about, here's someone claiming feudalism is socialism:

here's another obvious disparity:

Wow, I wonder what influx the US has had in recent decades that was suddenly vastly expanded in the last decade and the reasons behind that.