The drastic change in outlook for the country’s rental market adds further weight to arguments that even with the aim of reducing the burden on renters, rent caps often have the opposite effect.
Ah, not just populist, pro-landlord. Not shocking from the Barclays (or Barclay, I guess).
You have to understand “capitalist” in this case means “I’m in high school and someone looks greedy”.
Like, there’s nuance and then there’s “everyone who is not an anarcho-socialist-utopian-solar-punk-revolutionary is a capitalist”.
And I say this totally not defending capitalism, I’m just smart enough to see a difference between “fisher-price my first socialism” vs reality…
Having a greedy oligarchy isn’t capitalism, it can be just as bad if not worse but the idea things being different is lost on these folks… if you are going to argue that Putin taking everything for himself is just Russia being “capitalist” then you are literally telling the world “I can see lots of trees, but no forest…”
No shit. Doesn’t make them capitalists and it doesn’t make a mob boss the monopoly man. Regardless of “systems” I wouldn’t call China capitalist nor Russia and comparing them to or claiming them as such wouldn’t be accurate or even helpful really.
It’s not helpful in assessing current context or motive. But yea let’s just call em all capitalist…
No communist in America is a communist. They all want to be communist (wannabe communist, like wannabe badasses), but they are not. You are what you eat.
The US should lead a vast effort by the West (broadly construed to include allies like Australia, Japan, etc.) to deploy all covert means and significant overt means, short of a shooting war, to destabilize and ultimately destroy the russian state.
Fuck russia. A million times over, then once more, for good measure, fuck russia.
Macron, Scholz: it is going to be on you to lead if the most fucktarded of my compatriots succeed in their “real men wear diapers” campaign. FFS.
deploy all covert means and significant overt means, short of a shooting war, to destabilize and ultimately destroy the russian state.
While they kind of maybe wanted that, they fear all the nukes getting to worse hands than they already are right now. At least Putin is sane enough to not use them, but more extreme leader might.
Russia is happy with a warmer world. Their land will become more temperate, they’ll get a shipping passage up north. And of course the oligarchy will get richer. Gazprom their state owned and run oil and gas companies is one of Russia’s main economic drivers.
You clearly have Russia confused with somebody else. Russia has some of the biggest natural gas operations on earth, and they’re the largest exporter of oil.
Ah, good question. They haven’t make any statements afaik. If they cooperated in extracting it then they’ll probably sell it like they would with any other commodity, Russia doesn’t really have any claim to the resources or territory even if their people discovered the deposit.
You pretty much had it right the first time. The Falklands would likely be used as a staging area, being the closest British or allied territory to the part of Antarctica in question.
The US will, sooner or later, learn the same lesson all empires learnt before: No matter how mighty you are, some regional power somewhere will be beyond your control.
This assumption is almost universal yet has been disproven time and time again, particularly in the Middle East.
i don;t like conscription into the military but i’ve always felt some sort of manatory non-military civil or social service or peace corps participation would do a lot for encouraging civic participation in exchange for some sort of universal educational system or some form of reimbursement for secondary education.
In this day and age it feels like a McDonald’s worker could ai copilot a drone better than the folks over in Israel, so no I totally disagree with conscription without certain safeguards in place to prevent genocide or other dumbfuckery.
Due to Antarctic treaties, the claim should be effectively inoperative as long as the UK is a member, and Russia shouldn’t be extracting mineral resources as long as Russia is a member.
The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 by 12 nations and came into effect in the mid-1960s. The central ideas with full acceptance were the freedom of scientific research in Antarctica and the peaceful use of the continent. There was also a consensus for demilitarization and the maintenance of the status quo. The treaty prohibits nuclear testing, military operations, economic exploitation, and territorial claims in Antarctica. It is monitored through on-site inspections. The only permanent structures allowed are scientific research stations. The original signatory countries hold voting rights on Antarctic governance, with seven of them claiming portions of the continent and the remaining five being non-claimants. Other nations have joined as consultative members by conducting significant research in Antarctica. Non-consultative parties can also adhere to the treaty. In 1991-1992, the treaty was renegotiated by 33 nations, with the main change being the Madrid Protocol on Environmental Protection, which prohibited mining and oil exploration for 50 years.[13]
The guy sucks, but the previous left administration drove the economy into the ground. Poverty rose from around 45% to around 55%, and inflation went from around 25% to 288%.
We on the left need to be economically savvy. That doesn’t mean we can’t be radical. For example: A hundred different means-tested, bureaucratic welfare programs is progressive but inefficient and demeaning. A universal livable basic income is radical, liberating, and economically savvy. Rent control is another example of a popular leftist policy that is economically irrational. The goal of universal affordable housing is admirable, but the method is madness. It’s unfortunate that the left abhors anti-intellectualism everywhere except in economics.
This is not to say that we need to embrace neoliberal corporatist bullshit like charter schools, universal privatization, gutting regulatory agencies, etc, etc. It’s just recognizing that radical goals will not be achieved by ignoring hardwon economic knowledge, but by employing economic principles for the benefit of the poor instead of the wealthy.
telegraph.co.uk
Active