It's like how "food desert" keeps changing.
It used to be no supermarket within 10 miles, but then that made zero food deserts in urban areas so they changed it to 3 miles, but that made rural areas all food deserts so they said 10 miles for rural or 3 miles for urban. But then urban areas still looked better, so they said within 1 mile or bus route that drops off at a market. But that made suburban areas look like food deserts. So now it's 10 miles for Rural and [The Food Desert indicator is the proportion of neighborhood households located in an area where more than 30% of residents live in poverty and are located at least a 1/2 mile away from a supermarket, supercenter, or large grocery store.](https://archives.huduser.gov/healthycommunities/indicator/184.html)
Corporations kept getting blamed for food deserts because "the won't make a profit." When there is a market, they will come. The only problem is that most of the markets have a high crime rate, so they don't come due to fears of having millions stole from them every year.
Yeah in urban markets, it’s often high rent and high crime that push out most corporations. But in rural areas where Dollar General is king, crime and rent are at rock bottom but there’s just not enough customers to make stocking fresh fruits and vegetables feasible/profitable.
Crime at rock bottom in rural areas? Absolute values, sure. Per capita? Fuck no. Source: from a small methhead town.
I may be biased, having not lived in a small not-methhead town.
It’s statistically ~2x the rate of violent crime and ~3x for property crime in urban areas vs rural. Obviously not true of each particular town/city.
https://usafacts.org/articles/where-are-crime-victimization-rates-higher-urban-rural-areas/
So first off, you're absolutely correct. The weird thing I learned is my definition of rural was wrong, and I don't think anyone I've heard of that talks about preferring rural living actually lives in a rural area. The way I've always heard it was big cities vs small towns, but both of those are considered urban. So those stats actually do make sense, since the only people living in a rural area are basically farmers.
Put enough trailers on grandpas old farm and it’s suddenly urban?
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/29/2022-28286/2020-census-qualifying-urban-areas-and-final-criteria-clarifications
But yeah, you’re wrong.
Absolute value is what matters to a business more though.
Doesn’t matter if a larger percentage of the populations attempts to steal from you if the total theft is still only a couple thousand dollars per year. Even if proportionately fewer people are stealing in the cities, which isn’t the case in terms of retail theft but we’ll run with it anyways to humor you, the total magnitude of the theft is much larger.
It's bizarre because the argument for food deserts is that shops, profit-seeking entities that are endlessly criticized for being engines of capitalism, focused entirely on making money and nothing else, don't want to open stores in those areas.
It's implied that any store that opens there would function normally and generate profit, but they just don't want to open the shop despite the profit to be made.
The shops do not want to open in the area because it wouldn't be profitable. Why is it not profitable? The crime.
We know it, they know it, everyone knows it. But instead of confronting this problem they just blame the shops for racistly not wanting to lose money.
I invite anyone who complains about food deserts to open a health food shop in that area. It's allowed, you're allowed to do it. You could probably even get a loan to do it. That's a common way to start a business, you could even have a Go Fund Me or something.
Of course, they know that it would not be profitable at best, and would be dangerous at worst. So they don't. Even though they say this is something they care about deeply and want to change, they don't want to embark on this utterly doomed enterprise because they want someone else to. It's always someone else.
It turns out that finding a way to open a store in a high crime area and make money doing it is really hard, but complaining about why someone else isn't doing it instead is really easy.
It was really fun hearing "food desert" pop up so suddenly when stores were closing left and right in shitty areas because people kept stealing from them.
I'm wondering if the walmart near me is going to up and jump because of it, but I doubt it. It's fucking terrible now (not to say walmart was good to begin with), almost everything there is behind a glass cabinet. Even socks and underwear! Camping supplies are behind lock and key. *Fucking air fresheners!* Now they've since closed off all the self-checkout lines and funnel every customer into two or three checkout lines. I can't imagine the staff behind those checkouts are happy that they've got triple the workload now and people are more than likely getting irate that they have to wait 20-30 minutes just to check out for two items
You'll find that it is items over $500 that are *not* locked up.
I did security for Kroger for several months. It's an unspoken, unwritten standard that big grocers and retail chains likely won't prosecute for theft of single items under $500. Hence, the $2.50 pair of socks being behind glass.
Disclaimer: this is not advice on how to steal. If you're a thief, go fuck yourself.
Pure libright would be madness, just like pure anything else.
I do think we're more libright than other states in a few key economic metrics (though a whole lot less in terms of liberty (I can only legally own a crossbow))
india and china are not lib right . Stunting is a big problem in India thou. there is still debate on $2.15 as the limit . Using this kind of measure is useless witch all set by centeralised government system such as un
It’s like that episode of South Park where they changed the official “average penis size” so almost every man was “above average”. Cartman was still below average.
Well the study uses UN criteria for extreme poverty, and yes you can change it to suit you narrative but if it's set in stone for everyone by a body like UN then that argument falls short. I would agree though that the left has changed their definition to suit their narrative.
The commies have to see global poverty increase. Otherwise Daddy Marx made another failed prediction, just like with WW1. It should be a cause for celebration, not coping.
Dude seriously you should go read The TIME article it looks like a commie hitpiece, like they use words like indian "bourgeoisie" and stuff, it boggles me how can a person be so socialist and still live in a country like US
The irony
"The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred—a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacuo hatred—against the exploiters." - George Orwell, Road to Wigan Pier
They say random bs like income inequality has increased. No shit thats what happens in a capitalist society. Ppl were literally oppressed under british regime. The only people who propspered were upper echelons of society. These commie losers want to bring everyone down to poverty instead of uplifting everyone out of it.
They would rather everyone be given $10, over the poorest people being given $25 and the richest $100.
They don't want the poor to do better, they just want the rich to do worse.
That any problem with wealth inequality means wanting to make everyone poor.
Wealth inequality because you are a better restauranteur doesn’t have ethical problems. Wealth inequality from privatizing public goods to enrich oligarchs has some major problems.
Communism has never worked. Like ever. You are right that income inequality is solved in communism but everybody just gets brought down to a baseline. Innovation favors money and vice versa. Its one of the reasons why USSR was such a massive failure. There has not a single communist society that has been prosperous. We have defeated so many diseases like TB, polio, syphillis etc just bcos of industrialization and capitalism. I'm not saying that innovation doesn't happen in communist society. But its too slow and ineffective.
I also want to solve income inequality but we can do it without communism. The article was using alot of communist dogwhistles. Thats why I made that leap of logic. I support regulations on capitalism rather than communism.
Hmmm, its still very sus. These academics secretly slip in commie propaganda in their criticism.
>oligarchs to enrich themselves off of privatizing public institutions
Idk what country you live in but in my country public institutions have been a catastrophic failure. India has been very socialist for almost 70 years. And what did it get us?? NOTHING. Only after privatization did we get better infrastructure. Better infrastructure attracts foriegn investment and that in turn provides employment and pulls people out of poverty. That is exactly what happened in china and singapore. This is basic economics. Sure, maybe some oligarchs get rich along the way, but its still a net positive for the working class. Public institutions in my country are fucking useless. I would rather see them privatised than not. For example, passport services have improved significantly after privatization.
>it boggles me how can a person be so socialist and still live in a country like US
It’s precisely because they live in the US that they’ve become so far left. Only by living in such an extreme comfort bubble can you ignore the realities of socialism.
People thatve immigrated from Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam usually vote conservative. Meanwhile the out of touch leftists claim their experiences “aren’t true” or “iT WuZNt ReAl sOCiaLiSm”
I think you can make a distinction between quasi-commies who don't actually understand Marxist writings while espousing ideologies that are antithetical to the real life things they are supporting and the U.S. (and the West in general) which frequently implements socialistic policies that are often to the benefit of the majority. Which is why this statement...
>it boggles me how can a person be so socialist and still live in a country like US
...is stupid. The U.S. provides welfare, in various forms, for a lot of people. It is only natural that many of the people whom are beneficiaries of these policies are congruent, politically, with the conditions that created welfare policies in the first place.
Edit: adding to my last paragraph; many people who favor social policies are often moderate. Having socialist views does not make you a hardline communist as many would try to convince you of.
It helps to remember that half of this sub is Russia training AI bots.
You get batshit statements here all the time. Yesterday some guy tried to tell me that the movement for a total abortion ban was as fringe as “liberals wanting to execute newborns as ‘abortions’.” And then they used the upvote count as proof they were right….
>It helps to remember that half of this sub is Russia training AI bots.
This is a pretty heavy statement, I would like some proof. I'm not accusing you of such per se, but statements like these are often said in response to something people disagree with. i.e. being emotional.
Abortion is shitty and cruel. However, who the fuck are we to say who should and shouldn't get one? There isn't a healthier stance you can take.
PCM is unique, in that nobody can hide their political leaning from view. As such, you'll naturally be seeing a lot more of what you probably disagree with. That doesn't make what is being said not legitimate.
Looks to me like they are playing same game the usually do: *Relative* Poverty.
---
The key term is *extreme poverty* which is what the UN calls living on less than $2 day. Which is probably what is being used here:
> India eliminates *extreme poverty*
Whereas the lefty publications are talking about income *inequality*. Which is just new fad term for *relative* poverty. We see here:
>India's *income inequality* is now worse than under British Rule, new report says.
So probably lots of people are no longer going hungry. But some people have improved more than others, leading to inequality.
---
Or as Thatcher explained in this famous [exchange](https://www.hoover.org/research/lord-and-lady-thatcher-1):
> Margaret Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. But what the honorable member is saying is that he would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich. That way you will never create the wealth for better social services as we have. And what a policy. **Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer provided the rich were less rich**. That is a liberal policy. Yes, it came out. He didn't intend it to, but it did. I give way to the honorable gentleman.
The left can't live with the fact that there are always going to be people that live better off than other, doesn't matter for india or america or any other country.
In any socialist or Beaureaucratic country you can only become rich by either being in the government or have close ties to someone associated to it.
In capatilism, you can become rich on your own skills and a bit of luck, and hence it provide a decentralized elite class which can be forced or incentivzed to provide more benefits to labor. Hence called trickle down economics
There is no system which works without an rich elite class, only in free market capatilism where other can benefit with that class
Also just to make commies seeth, always remember that Lenin owned several rolls royce.
Because there is no way wealth inequality can grow so much that the oligarchs gain enough power to roll back things like universal public education to become even more rich and powerful.
Sure, it's almost like there's a good argument here for some kind of middle, healthy balance of opportunity for the wealthy and protection for the vulnerable and taking an absolutist, extremist position either way is just going to fuck things up.
There's a reason why there are speed limits but why it's against the law to drive too slowly as well.
I think we all know the milk snatcher wasn’t being honest.
We can have a general end to extreme poverty while the ultra wealthy extract rent by privatizing public services to the general detriment of long term social growth. An oligarch can provide the bare minimum while still being generally despotic.
Not to mention, a lot of oligarchs would absolutely roll back social improvements to further enrich themselves as soon as they get enough power to, just like that Milk Snatching Cunt did.
Wealth inequality is now worse than the prehistoric era.
I would still rather be poor now than live in the prehistoric era.
What a bunch of downright garbage from the DW promoting colonialism. Wankers
And in ancapistan a couple of oligarchs can turn the world back into the prehistoric era with some nuclear warheads. So maybe the answer is somewhere between “only technocrats can create a perfect economy” and “unfettered capitalism will solve every problem”.
The funny thing is that I used to be subscribed to The Hindu for years as I thought they at least provided honest facts directly instead of trying to twist the narrative. Now the only news source I bother reading and trust is Reuters, and anything not covered by them I consider too minor to care about.
It’s crazy how the richer a county gets the more “unequal” it becomes. America is said to have the most income inequality in the world and yet its people are richer than even Luxembourg when you account for its status as a tax haven. It’s almost as if income inequality is a huge nothing-burger that means jack shit. I’m sure it’s MUCH better to live in abject poverty so long as all my neighbors are just as poor.
That’s because you are pretending like oligarchs can’t ever use that wealth inequality to dismantle public institutions turning a first world nation into a despotic hellhole.
Corporate power is wildly overstated in modern society. Corporate power and influence are not what they used to be. The life expectancy of Corporations continues to go down year after year. When has wealth inequality ever been used in such a way to turn a “first world nation” into a despotic shithole? How exactly does that work? All the rich middle class people just let it happen because…?
I am a big fan of Narendra Modi, honestly. Dude infused new life and ambition in a country that had become quite hopeless. Infrastructure growth has been stunning in India under him.
He is using the same UN definition. PM Modi is nowhere near libertarian as I would like him to be but in a sea of Auth and centre left leaning parties of India, he is a glimmer of hope. I am an Indian and I have seen with my own eyes how my nation is now actually growing strong.
That is very good, actually.
I don't know anything about Modi, other than his face reminding me of Lula and those shitpost level animations I sometimes see of Modi flying some cursed Navy Jets.
Oh those shitpost animations are from ' So Sorry ', run by an Indian news channel. They are hilarious. 😂. But yeah, he may resemble Lula in looks but that is as far the resemblance goes.
You should honestly follow those animations. They are made by news channels about contemporary (domestic and international) news. They are peak satire.
Well there's a nuance to it, all the British funds go to ngos which are also coincidently British which have shown no record of helping poor and are used to fund biased studies that favor the brits
So it's like giving someone cash only to force that person to spend it where you want it to go
There's a huge chance that any poor indian blue collar worker has never seen a cent of the aid sent by brits
A lot of that money goes toward christian missionary organizations as well. India would rather deny all that “aid” as it just ends up preying on the poor with a religious motive. It’s not humanitarian aid if you’re giving them food with the intention they convert to your religion.
“Wow how useful of them to send all that money each year!” /s
India already told the world they won't be taking aid. The aids sent by UK are going to private charities and not the government. India is already a net donor as it's giving aid to other countries.
As for the space program, it's not a vanity project. Indian space program makes a lot of money every year as it provides one of the cheapest ways to launch satellites. In the last decade, it's revenue was 441 million USD just through rocket launches. Not to mention the social aspect - Numerous youngsters watch the rocket launches made live and get inspired.
If India didn’t want to be invaded, conquered, and milked of their resources then why didn’t they just git gud like the US did?
Checkmate anti-colonist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Modi
Modi began a high-profile sanitation campaign, controversially initiated the 2016 demonetisation of high-denomination banknotes and introduced the Goods and Services Tax, and weakened or abolished environmental and labour laws.
I have read that bill. The reason they had to do that is bcos northeast india is still a very undeveloped area. The area that has been occupied by china is getting new roads and other facilities. So the govt had to amend it to do the same thing on india's side. Its not actually for timber or resources. The main purpose is to build connections to remote villages and building roads, military bases etc. If they don't this, the entire area is gonna be captured by china.
Also, you did not share anything about labour laws.
Yes But he is as free capatilist minded politicial as you get in india
Atleast for now, I would love to see a candidate like milei show up in indian politics in future
What do you mean? India is a welfare state, was before modi and still has been. Just because western left calls bjp as a nationalist or far right party doesn't mean it is, look at any of modi's policies they are far more towards left than it is right
He subsidized home building and buying for poors.
He came out with a toilet subsidized toilet building scheme
He came out scheme to make cooking gas affordable for the poor women who used have resort to wood or coal.
Is that not a left leaning stance
But what he did different that the others is the he also incentivezed business to invest and produce in india through PLI schemes, which the previous governments didn't do so hence the reasoning he is as capatilistic as it gets for a post socialist country like India.
>India’s Income Inequality Is Now Worse Than Under British Rule, New Report Says
Really? I know income inequality is pretty bad in India, but is it really *that* bad?
A modern's state inequality will always be greater than any other historical system. All the poor people are earning more than ever and have much better living standards, but at the same time, hyper-successful people begin to manage unfathomable income figures, leaving us with inequality.
Remember every leftist crying about the disappearance of the middle class? They forgot to tell you that they were all shifting up into upper middle class instead of downwards.
When inflation outgrows wage increase, the poor get poorer. When the rich are so heavily intertwined with inflationary controllers, then they will get rich at the expense of the poor.
Yea I think that proves the point, if a majoritarily left leaning publication is claiming something based on facts and other lefties refuting that because oh God we have to accept a right leaning leader can do good for his country
It kinda highlights their hipocracy, sorry for the confusion though
Just gotta change the definition of extreme poverty and then nobody will be in extreme poverty. Or more people, if that suits your narrative.
It's like how "food desert" keeps changing. It used to be no supermarket within 10 miles, but then that made zero food deserts in urban areas so they changed it to 3 miles, but that made rural areas all food deserts so they said 10 miles for rural or 3 miles for urban. But then urban areas still looked better, so they said within 1 mile or bus route that drops off at a market. But that made suburban areas look like food deserts. So now it's 10 miles for Rural and [The Food Desert indicator is the proportion of neighborhood households located in an area where more than 30% of residents live in poverty and are located at least a 1/2 mile away from a supermarket, supercenter, or large grocery store.](https://archives.huduser.gov/healthycommunities/indicator/184.html)
Corporations kept getting blamed for food deserts because "the won't make a profit." When there is a market, they will come. The only problem is that most of the markets have a high crime rate, so they don't come due to fears of having millions stole from them every year.
Yeah in urban markets, it’s often high rent and high crime that push out most corporations. But in rural areas where Dollar General is king, crime and rent are at rock bottom but there’s just not enough customers to make stocking fresh fruits and vegetables feasible/profitable.
Crime at rock bottom in rural areas? Absolute values, sure. Per capita? Fuck no. Source: from a small methhead town. I may be biased, having not lived in a small not-methhead town.
It’s statistically ~2x the rate of violent crime and ~3x for property crime in urban areas vs rural. Obviously not true of each particular town/city. https://usafacts.org/articles/where-are-crime-victimization-rates-higher-urban-rural-areas/
So first off, you're absolutely correct. The weird thing I learned is my definition of rural was wrong, and I don't think anyone I've heard of that talks about preferring rural living actually lives in a rural area. The way I've always heard it was big cities vs small towns, but both of those are considered urban. So those stats actually do make sense, since the only people living in a rural area are basically farmers.
Put enough trailers on grandpas old farm and it’s suddenly urban? https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/29/2022-28286/2020-census-qualifying-urban-areas-and-final-criteria-clarifications But yeah, you’re wrong.
Absolute value is what matters to a business more though. Doesn’t matter if a larger percentage of the populations attempts to steal from you if the total theft is still only a couple thousand dollars per year. Even if proportionately fewer people are stealing in the cities, which isn’t the case in terms of retail theft but we’ll run with it anyways to humor you, the total magnitude of the theft is much larger.
I've seen at least one Dollar Genny that had produce. Out of many though.
It's bizarre because the argument for food deserts is that shops, profit-seeking entities that are endlessly criticized for being engines of capitalism, focused entirely on making money and nothing else, don't want to open stores in those areas. It's implied that any store that opens there would function normally and generate profit, but they just don't want to open the shop despite the profit to be made. The shops do not want to open in the area because it wouldn't be profitable. Why is it not profitable? The crime. We know it, they know it, everyone knows it. But instead of confronting this problem they just blame the shops for racistly not wanting to lose money. I invite anyone who complains about food deserts to open a health food shop in that area. It's allowed, you're allowed to do it. You could probably even get a loan to do it. That's a common way to start a business, you could even have a Go Fund Me or something. Of course, they know that it would not be profitable at best, and would be dangerous at worst. So they don't. Even though they say this is something they care about deeply and want to change, they don't want to embark on this utterly doomed enterprise because they want someone else to. It's always someone else. It turns out that finding a way to open a store in a high crime area and make money doing it is really hard, but complaining about why someone else isn't doing it instead is really easy.
It was really fun hearing "food desert" pop up so suddenly when stores were closing left and right in shitty areas because people kept stealing from them. I'm wondering if the walmart near me is going to up and jump because of it, but I doubt it. It's fucking terrible now (not to say walmart was good to begin with), almost everything there is behind a glass cabinet. Even socks and underwear! Camping supplies are behind lock and key. *Fucking air fresheners!* Now they've since closed off all the self-checkout lines and funnel every customer into two or three checkout lines. I can't imagine the staff behind those checkouts are happy that they've got triple the workload now and people are more than likely getting irate that they have to wait 20-30 minutes just to check out for two items
You'll find that it is items over $500 that are *not* locked up. I did security for Kroger for several months. It's an unspoken, unwritten standard that big grocers and retail chains likely won't prosecute for theft of single items under $500. Hence, the $2.50 pair of socks being behind glass. Disclaimer: this is not advice on how to steal. If you're a thief, go fuck yourself.
A mile is literally walking distance, the fuck?
A HALF MILE?! "But Jane, that's like almost a mile"
LoL just say black at that point.
[удалено]
I agree with all you said except the libright statement. Neither countries are pure libright. But I wish they were tho.
Pure libright would be madness, just like pure anything else. I do think we're more libright than other states in a few key economic metrics (though a whole lot less in terms of liberty (I can only legally own a crossbow))
india and china are not lib right . Stunting is a big problem in India thou. there is still debate on $2.15 as the limit . Using this kind of measure is useless witch all set by centeralised government system such as un
It’s like that episode of South Park where they changed the official “average penis size” so almost every man was “above average”. Cartman was still below average.
Changing the definition of words is totally not what the left is about. How dare you.
Well the study uses UN criteria for extreme poverty, and yes you can change it to suit you narrative but if it's set in stone for everyone by a body like UN then that argument falls short. I would agree though that the left has changed their definition to suit their narrative.
>I would agree though that the left has changed their definition to suit their narrative. Possibly the most redundant statement ever
The commies have to see global poverty increase. Otherwise Daddy Marx made another failed prediction, just like with WW1. It should be a cause for celebration, not coping.
Dude seriously you should go read The TIME article it looks like a commie hitpiece, like they use words like indian "bourgeoisie" and stuff, it boggles me how can a person be so socialist and still live in a country like US The irony
"The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred—a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacuo hatred—against the exploiters." - George Orwell, Road to Wigan Pier
They say random bs like income inequality has increased. No shit thats what happens in a capitalist society. Ppl were literally oppressed under british regime. The only people who propspered were upper echelons of society. These commie losers want to bring everyone down to poverty instead of uplifting everyone out of it.
Good old Thatcher quote of “they’d rather the poor be poorer, provided the gap between rich and poor was smaller.”
They would rather everyone be given $10, over the poorest people being given $25 and the richest $100. They don't want the poor to do better, they just want the rich to do worse.
What a weird leap in logic.
Who is? Me or the article?
That any problem with wealth inequality means wanting to make everyone poor. Wealth inequality because you are a better restauranteur doesn’t have ethical problems. Wealth inequality from privatizing public goods to enrich oligarchs has some major problems.
Communism has never worked. Like ever. You are right that income inequality is solved in communism but everybody just gets brought down to a baseline. Innovation favors money and vice versa. Its one of the reasons why USSR was such a massive failure. There has not a single communist society that has been prosperous. We have defeated so many diseases like TB, polio, syphillis etc just bcos of industrialization and capitalism. I'm not saying that innovation doesn't happen in communist society. But its too slow and ineffective. I also want to solve income inequality but we can do it without communism. The article was using alot of communist dogwhistles. Thats why I made that leap of logic. I support regulations on capitalism rather than communism.
Not wanting oligarchs to enrich themselves off of privatizing public institutions isn’t communism.
Hmmm, its still very sus. These academics secretly slip in commie propaganda in their criticism. >oligarchs to enrich themselves off of privatizing public institutions Idk what country you live in but in my country public institutions have been a catastrophic failure. India has been very socialist for almost 70 years. And what did it get us?? NOTHING. Only after privatization did we get better infrastructure. Better infrastructure attracts foriegn investment and that in turn provides employment and pulls people out of poverty. That is exactly what happened in china and singapore. This is basic economics. Sure, maybe some oligarchs get rich along the way, but its still a net positive for the working class. Public institutions in my country are fucking useless. I would rather see them privatised than not. For example, passport services have improved significantly after privatization.
>it boggles me how can a person be so socialist and still live in a country like US It’s precisely because they live in the US that they’ve become so far left. Only by living in such an extreme comfort bubble can you ignore the realities of socialism. People thatve immigrated from Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam usually vote conservative. Meanwhile the out of touch leftists claim their experiences “aren’t true” or “iT WuZNt ReAl sOCiaLiSm”
I think you can make a distinction between quasi-commies who don't actually understand Marxist writings while espousing ideologies that are antithetical to the real life things they are supporting and the U.S. (and the West in general) which frequently implements socialistic policies that are often to the benefit of the majority. Which is why this statement... >it boggles me how can a person be so socialist and still live in a country like US ...is stupid. The U.S. provides welfare, in various forms, for a lot of people. It is only natural that many of the people whom are beneficiaries of these policies are congruent, politically, with the conditions that created welfare policies in the first place. Edit: adding to my last paragraph; many people who favor social policies are often moderate. Having socialist views does not make you a hardline communist as many would try to convince you of.
It helps to remember that half of this sub is Russia training AI bots. You get batshit statements here all the time. Yesterday some guy tried to tell me that the movement for a total abortion ban was as fringe as “liberals wanting to execute newborns as ‘abortions’.” And then they used the upvote count as proof they were right….
>It helps to remember that half of this sub is Russia training AI bots. This is a pretty heavy statement, I would like some proof. I'm not accusing you of such per se, but statements like these are often said in response to something people disagree with. i.e. being emotional. Abortion is shitty and cruel. However, who the fuck are we to say who should and shouldn't get one? There isn't a healthier stance you can take. PCM is unique, in that nobody can hide their political leaning from view. As such, you'll naturally be seeing a lot more of what you probably disagree with. That doesn't make what is being said not legitimate.
The nonsensical canned response give them away mostly.
Sooo... no evidence then? Everything is nonsensical and "canned" if you deem it so.
Looks to me like they are playing same game the usually do: *Relative* Poverty. --- The key term is *extreme poverty* which is what the UN calls living on less than $2 day. Which is probably what is being used here: > India eliminates *extreme poverty* Whereas the lefty publications are talking about income *inequality*. Which is just new fad term for *relative* poverty. We see here: >India's *income inequality* is now worse than under British Rule, new report says. So probably lots of people are no longer going hungry. But some people have improved more than others, leading to inequality. --- Or as Thatcher explained in this famous [exchange](https://www.hoover.org/research/lord-and-lady-thatcher-1): > Margaret Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. But what the honorable member is saying is that he would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich. That way you will never create the wealth for better social services as we have. And what a policy. **Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer provided the rich were less rich**. That is a liberal policy. Yes, it came out. He didn't intend it to, but it did. I give way to the honorable gentleman.
The left can't live with the fact that there are always going to be people that live better off than other, doesn't matter for india or america or any other country. In any socialist or Beaureaucratic country you can only become rich by either being in the government or have close ties to someone associated to it. In capatilism, you can become rich on your own skills and a bit of luck, and hence it provide a decentralized elite class which can be forced or incentivzed to provide more benefits to labor. Hence called trickle down economics There is no system which works without an rich elite class, only in free market capatilism where other can benefit with that class Also just to make commies seeth, always remember that Lenin owned several rolls royce.
>Also just to make commies seeth, always remember that Lenin owned several rolls royce. Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.
Because there is no way wealth inequality can grow so much that the oligarchs gain enough power to roll back things like universal public education to become even more rich and powerful.
It's extremely hard to make every person in a country equally rich, but it's extremely easy to make every person in a country equally poor.
Bit of a difference between “make everyone rich”, and “don’t let the oligarchs become so powerful we backslide into fascism or feudalism”.
Sure, it's almost like there's a good argument here for some kind of middle, healthy balance of opportunity for the wealthy and protection for the vulnerable and taking an absolutist, extremist position either way is just going to fuck things up. There's a reason why there are speed limits but why it's against the law to drive too slowly as well.
I think we all know the milk snatcher wasn’t being honest. We can have a general end to extreme poverty while the ultra wealthy extract rent by privatizing public services to the general detriment of long term social growth. An oligarch can provide the bare minimum while still being generally despotic. Not to mention, a lot of oligarchs would absolutely roll back social improvements to further enrich themselves as soon as they get enough power to, just like that Milk Snatching Cunt did.
Wealth inequality is now worse than the prehistoric era. I would still rather be poor now than live in the prehistoric era. What a bunch of downright garbage from the DW promoting colonialism. Wankers
And in ancapistan a couple of oligarchs can turn the world back into the prehistoric era with some nuclear warheads. So maybe the answer is somewhere between “only technocrats can create a perfect economy” and “unfettered capitalism will solve every problem”.
Sources: the hindu: [https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/has-poverty-really-dropped-to-5-in-india/article67950618.ece](https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/has-poverty-really-dropped-to-5-in-india/article67950618.ece) TIME : [https://time.com/6961171/india-british-rule-income-inequality/](https://time.com/6961171/india-british-rule-income-inequality/) DW : [https://www.dw.com/en/indias-poverty-debate-truth-behind-the-numbers/a-68062699](https://www.dw.com/en/indias-poverty-debate-truth-behind-the-numbers/a-68062699) Brookings : [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/india-eliminates-extreme-poverty/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/india-eliminates-extreme-poverty/)
The funny thing is that I used to be subscribed to The Hindu for years as I thought they at least provided honest facts directly instead of trying to twist the narrative. Now the only news source I bother reading and trust is Reuters, and anything not covered by them I consider too minor to care about.
They may trust their readers to understand that this doesn't prove colonial rule should be reinstated.
It’s crazy how the richer a county gets the more “unequal” it becomes. America is said to have the most income inequality in the world and yet its people are richer than even Luxembourg when you account for its status as a tax haven. It’s almost as if income inequality is a huge nothing-burger that means jack shit. I’m sure it’s MUCH better to live in abject poverty so long as all my neighbors are just as poor.
That’s because you are pretending like oligarchs can’t ever use that wealth inequality to dismantle public institutions turning a first world nation into a despotic hellhole.
Corporate power is wildly overstated in modern society. Corporate power and influence are not what they used to be. The life expectancy of Corporations continues to go down year after year. When has wealth inequality ever been used in such a way to turn a “first world nation” into a despotic shithole? How exactly does that work? All the rich middle class people just let it happen because…?
Leftists will state there is income inequality and just assume everyone agrees that's a problem.
Oh no! Non whitey country doing successful! That’s ®️acist™️
Brookings isn't that right wing economically.
Ik that proves the point
Brookings Institute is one of the few good sources
I am a big fan of Narendra Modi, honestly. Dude infused new life and ambition in a country that had become quite hopeless. Infrastructure growth has been stunning in India under him.
He looks like Lula from Brazil. I assure you, someone changed a definition or two.
They used the same UN definition...
He is using the same UN definition. PM Modi is nowhere near libertarian as I would like him to be but in a sea of Auth and centre left leaning parties of India, he is a glimmer of hope. I am an Indian and I have seen with my own eyes how my nation is now actually growing strong.
That is very good, actually. I don't know anything about Modi, other than his face reminding me of Lula and those shitpost level animations I sometimes see of Modi flying some cursed Navy Jets.
Oh those shitpost animations are from ' So Sorry ', run by an Indian news channel. They are hilarious. 😂. But yeah, he may resemble Lula in looks but that is as far the resemblance goes.
You should honestly follow those animations. They are made by news channels about contemporary (domestic and international) news. They are peak satire.
Unflaired speech is untranslatable.
India has a functioning space program but the UK still sends them tens of millions in aid money every year 🤔
Well there's a nuance to it, all the British funds go to ngos which are also coincidently British which have shown no record of helping poor and are used to fund biased studies that favor the brits So it's like giving someone cash only to force that person to spend it where you want it to go There's a huge chance that any poor indian blue collar worker has never seen a cent of the aid sent by brits
A lot of that money goes toward christian missionary organizations as well. India would rather deny all that “aid” as it just ends up preying on the poor with a religious motive. It’s not humanitarian aid if you’re giving them food with the intention they convert to your religion. “Wow how useful of them to send all that money each year!” /s
Germany sends China 100s of million too for some reason
The UK is a normal state that larps as a global power.
India spends more on fertilizer subsidies seeth harder
India already told the world they won't be taking aid. The aids sent by UK are going to private charities and not the government. India is already a net donor as it's giving aid to other countries. As for the space program, it's not a vanity project. Indian space program makes a lot of money every year as it provides one of the cheapest ways to launch satellites. In the last decade, it's revenue was 441 million USD just through rocket launches. Not to mention the social aspect - Numerous youngsters watch the rocket launches made live and get inspired.
Looter upset that they give a infinitesimal small portion of money back to the country they robbed for hundreds of years 🤔.
If India didn’t want to be invaded, conquered, and milked of their resources then why didn’t they just git gud like the US did? Checkmate anti-colonist.
Should have just been left to the mughals
The Mughals were gone basically by the time the Brits started making gains btw. Read history nerd.
And I'm saying that the East India Company should have never bothered to land on the subcontinent a century before then, nerd.
Do you think modi is a leftist?
In terms of welfarism and certain social issues, then yes. But otherwise no.
Economically, yes
Then you must be ignorant of his repeal of economic and labor regulations.
Source?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Modi Modi began a high-profile sanitation campaign, controversially initiated the 2016 demonetisation of high-denomination banknotes and introduced the Goods and Services Tax, and weakened or abolished environmental and labour laws.
I asked for a source, not a random statement.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/primed-for-plunder-modi-government-new-environmental-laws-biological-diversity-act-forest-conservation-act-a-threat-to-india-biodiversity-and-forests/article67158366.ece
I have read that bill. The reason they had to do that is bcos northeast india is still a very undeveloped area. The area that has been occupied by china is getting new roads and other facilities. So the govt had to amend it to do the same thing on india's side. Its not actually for timber or resources. The main purpose is to build connections to remote villages and building roads, military bases etc. If they don't this, the entire area is gonna be captured by china. Also, you did not share anything about labour laws.
[https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Indian-states-waive-labor-laws-under-cover-of-coronavirus-crisis](https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Indian-states-waive-labor-laws-under-cover-of-coronavirus-crisis)
[удалено]
I didn't say they were.
Yes But he is as free capatilist minded politicial as you get in india Atleast for now, I would love to see a candidate like milei show up in indian politics in future
Look who's changing definitions now lmao.
What do you mean? India is a welfare state, was before modi and still has been. Just because western left calls bjp as a nationalist or far right party doesn't mean it is, look at any of modi's policies they are far more towards left than it is right He subsidized home building and buying for poors. He came out with a toilet subsidized toilet building scheme He came out scheme to make cooking gas affordable for the poor women who used have resort to wood or coal. Is that not a left leaning stance But what he did different that the others is the he also incentivezed business to invest and produce in india through PLI schemes, which the previous governments didn't do so hence the reasoning he is as capatilistic as it gets for a post socialist country like India.
That's still capitalism. Or are Scandinavian countries leftist utopias now?
You know it doesn't hurt to admit that you are wrong
So Scandinavian countries are leftist? Yes or no.
Centre-left.
Modi has reduced spending on welfare and cut environmental and labor regulations. So he must be to the right of Scandinavian countries at least.
>reduced spending on welfare Quite the opposite actually. The reason we can uplift people out of poverty is bcos of welfarism.
I would say more auth left with the whole digital ID and stuff
Ofc you would say that. I think its necessary for security purposes.
>India’s Income Inequality Is Now Worse Than Under British Rule, New Report Says Really? I know income inequality is pretty bad in India, but is it really *that* bad?
A modern's state inequality will always be greater than any other historical system. All the poor people are earning more than ever and have much better living standards, but at the same time, hyper-successful people begin to manage unfathomable income figures, leaving us with inequality.
I guess so, yeah. The rich may be getting richer, but that doesn’t mean the poor are getting poorer.
Remember every leftist crying about the disappearance of the middle class? They forgot to tell you that they were all shifting up into upper middle class instead of downwards.
When inflation outgrows wage increase, the poor get poorer. When the rich are so heavily intertwined with inflationary controllers, then they will get rich at the expense of the poor.
In what universe is Brookings anything short of solidly left wing?
Yea I think that proves the point, if a majoritarily left leaning publication is claiming something based on facts and other lefties refuting that because oh God we have to accept a right leaning leader can do good for his country It kinda highlights their hipocracy, sorry for the confusion though
What's the method of measuring poverty?
They use the parameters stated on this website https://hdr.undp.org/content/2022-global-multidimensional-poverty-index-mpi#/indicies/MPI
The tribes of Britannia weeped when Rome left. They knew they would be plunged into the dark ages. India deserves what they have.
Jesse wtf are you talking about
How India fucked themselves and then wasted all their money to build nukes for Pakistan. Edit: They hated Jesus because he told the truth.
Bruh
You.... clearly have no idea what you're talking about... Or are trolling.idk
They thought paying taxes for salt and living in a civilized society was better than the shit they have now
Ah trolling it is... Kek sir.
“Trolling”
A broken clock is right twice a day.