Well… Actually, they are. They were poor money lenders, and gave money to the neighbourhood junkie, expecting he would not buy crack. It is Argentina’s fault to be in the position it is, but it’s also the money lenders’ to enable it.
You, this was already happening and bound to happen with or without Milei. The difference is that, while Milei’s approach is to deregulate the economy, Kirchnerism/Peronism’s way was to hide the head underground and pretend it never happened.
At least now there’s a plan to do it.
Now you’d technically be a professional runner.
I do expect that. I expect teachers to be very well compensated. You are talking about educating future generations and the sustainability of the country. Not about selling microwaves (nothing against it, it’s just that I consider teachers to be as important to society as firefighters and healthcare workers).
Wait, are you telling me I shouldn’t keep throwing these anvils to that damned roadrunner? Because I frigging despise him.
Yes, by Argentinian standards. That is not much, taking into account the left bias that Argentinian politics have at the moment. By most standards, Juntos por el Cambio are a social-democrat solution. That is pretty much left in most countries.
See? That’s where I get confused and I end up with the “that can’t happen” attitude in my head.
If you abolish private property, then who has that property? Someone will always have some of that, at least. Let’s imagine that it’s seized, by whom? How? And why wouldn’t that be thievery in the eyes of those who don’t want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don’t it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a “haver” against all of those “havenotters” that gave their property for nothing but good will.
And then there’s the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of “property”? And then it’s the issue of how do you measure that “property”? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It’s not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.
Finally, who does that? We? And who is “we”? Who organises “we”? How is “we” not anarchist? And if it’s anarchist, how do we ensure it’s just?
“Planned by the libs”, as if the “libs” were a single entity that have a homogeneous plan. Let’s stop giving entity to stuff that never existed and realise that there is a structural problem that occurred because of bad management of our economy and policies. Because we had mediocre actors and in some cases actors with bad faith.
I don’t hate the human race. But I cannot stop pointing to our flaws. Not understanding our flaws, will lead to keep having them and the problems they carry.
On the other hand, what you are saying will be valid in any system. How do you propose to have a completely egalitarian society? It’s nearly impossible, there will always be people wanting more than they have and won’t care about the consequences of it.
Don’t blame capitalism for something that’s at the core of any political system: Greed destroys it. Greed and humans are intertwined. It’s not capitalism’s fault. The same happened across history even when and where capitalism didn’t exist: the Egyptian empire, the Roman Empire, the Soviet block and even in China now. Greedy people that can be bought will exist everywhere. The wish for power is not inherent of capitalism, is inherent of human nature. Failing to see that will lead to the same issue over and over again, in democratic or autocratic regimes.
Yes, of course we do. We just need politicians willing to do that. I thinks that’s the most difficult part.
Yes and no. Capitalism without regulations may bring this kind of issues. But capitalism with regulations shouldn’t. The issue is that the required regulations are not being applied or do not exist.
We should not blame or put the weight of the issue in capitalism, when we clearly know we don’t live in a perfect capitalistic world, and very few markets are like that. The issue is with politicians.
No, that’s an effect of collusion and cartelization of the economy. It’s because you have very few actors supplying the product and the barriers of creating a similar product are too high, so new competitors cannot access the market. Then the current suppliers can sit on the product and wait for it to be at the right price, as long as it doesn’t go to waste.
As you can see, all of this screens about real estate:
This is the time when governments should intervene and come up with a proposal to solve the cartelization.
Have a big population, season it abundantly with poverty and low social mobility, add a dash of ignorance and low education, et voilà! A magic cauldron where this and other horrific shit happen on a daily basis (if not hourly).
I was actually just trolling and with low effort. But I appreciate the wall of text. It means I’ve done it well.
Thanks for the compliments, have a pleasant evening.
Because, in case you didn’t realise, we don’t think that waging wars, hoarding nukes and “exporting freedom and democracy” is a good international policy nor a wise use of tax payers’ money.
But what do I know, right? I just have low crime rates, an affordable university system and don’t have to sell my kidney for a ride in an ambulance. All the while having 1 month paid vacation and a minimum salary that allows me to not live in the streets.
Sorry, I’m out of line.
Sorry, I cannot hear you over the sound of my state funded healthcare system and minimum wage over the poverty line.
You are not putting luck in the equation. There’s still a chance that it can hit something before the truck rolls over or is blown by any projectile.
Oh… believe me, me too.