3 ms·
Why: because of the financialization of housing. Why accept it? Westerners don't understand how their economies work to pass surplus value to the non-producti
by branchless 10y ago
Why: because of the financialization of housing.
Why accept it? Westerners don't understand how their economies work to pass surplus value to the non-productive.
- Anderkent 10y ago> Why accept it? Westerners don't understand how their economies work to pass surplus value to the non-productive Why do you think it's a question of understanding, rather than a moral obligation to help others?
- branchless 10y agoThe system decides. Charity after siphoning off labour is a poor second. http://savingcommunities.org/docs/george.henry/helpunemployed.html http://savingcommunities.org/docs/george.henry/helpunemploye...
- Anderkent 10y agoHow does that connect to your previous statement? Yes, the system (and the people who build and make up the system) decide to distribute wealth to 'non-productive' people. That's a good thing, exactly because charity of the 'productive' people is not reliable.
- branchless 10y agoWe are talking at cross purposes. The system directs wealth to rentiers, they are non-productive. The rich are the non-productive. The system does not allocate resources correctly, it's totally flawed.
- Anderkent 10y agoThen I think you need to talk in specifics, not general statements. When you compare our systems with the 'default' of having no system (i.e. anarcho-capitalism), it seems rentiers (i.e. owners of capital/land) are directed even more resources. So if you blame the system, you kinda have to be specific in what aspects you're blaming and how they could be improved. It's also not necessarily bad that some wealth is directed to rentiers, if otherwise the wealthy would have no incentive to use their wealth productively.