3 ms·

In other words, rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) and they received the same treatment that the US gives to it’s unemployed and hom

In other words, rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) and they received the same treatment that the US gives to it’s unemployed and homeless, except the US maintains an economic system that guarantees an unemployed and homeless population. If you think you’re making the USSR appear less reasonable than the US, maybe think again.

thodin 5y ago
It was difficult to be rentier in USSR because it was officially forbidden to "own" even 2 apartments at the same time.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  Sounds like a great law.
yazantapuz 5y ago
> rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) So, if I plan to live from rents that i earn from my past work i am a parasite?
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  Rent is attained by controlling access to capital that you own, according to the state. Wages are attained by selling your labor to someone else. Which is it?
  - yazantapuz 5y ago
    I have earned a certain capital selling my labour. That capital is now working for me (some rent, bounds, etc). Why you think that someone doing these is a parasite?
    - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
      Capital doesn’t “work”. People work. These are just objective English language definitions. What you’re saying is simply nonsensical. Can you try explaining again? Wrt “earning capital,” you may have purchased capital, but you sold your labor for wages. Compensation paid as stock options are an exception, and are a result of New Deal reforms to get more working people bought into the capitalist system, which has been successful, so far. But owning stocks is not the same as owning capital because you still do not control the capital and therefore cannot collect rents. Realize capitalists never directly trade the capital for the labor to operate that capital, unless forced. Historically, only communists have ever forced such a thing.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
As strange as it may seem, the us also has a system that respects the rights of people who want to be homeless nomads. If people want to be homeless due to mental health issues, there is no easy way out if the government is allowed to overrule someone who says ‘No! Don’t help me!’ Very difficult ethical issues all around. In our area, we have shelter beds open and people sleeping in the cold outside of the building…
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  How do you explain the astronomical numbers of homeless people in the US, for example, compared with so many other wealthy nations? Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke?
  - seneca 5y ago
    > Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke? The person you're replying to didn't say any such things. Your replies on this post have followed a pattern of lazy swipes, and degrade the quality of discussion here.
    - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
      My replies have followed a pattern of logical deduction and clarifying inquiry. Can you answer my questions?
mantas 5y ago
In USSR you couldn't own much, thus rent-seeking was not possible. House ownership was limited per-square-meter (varies on exact period and location). Most rooms/apartments were technically state property and you just rented them. Building „cooperative“ apartments where one would own it was a rather late development. And even then I believe limits of apartments-to-own were in place. On the other hand, room-renting was tolerated in two cases. Resorts (no enough spots in hotels) and university towns (no enough places in dormitories). In resorts locals would move to, for example, garages to make money from renting their own apartments to holiday goers. Students renting was usually old lady business where after your kids are gone and husband dies you rent spare rooms.
refurb 5y ago
Those are some impressive mental gymnastics. Regardless, the USSR was heavy on the “you don’t carry the water, you don’t drink”.

thodin 5y ago

It was difficult to be rentier in USSR because it was officially forbidden to "own" even 2 apartments at the same time.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Sounds like a great law.

yazantapuz 5y ago

> rent-seekers in the USSR were called what they are (parasites) So, if I plan to live from rents that i earn from my past work i am a parasite?

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Rent is attained by controlling access to capital that you own, according to the state. Wages are attained by selling your labor to someone else. Which is it?
- yazantapuz 5y ago
  I have earned a certain capital selling my labour. That capital is now working for me (some rent, bounds, etc). Why you think that someone doing these is a parasite?
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    Capital doesn’t “work”. People work. These are just objective English language definitions. What you’re saying is simply nonsensical. Can you try explaining again? Wrt “earning capital,” you may have purchased capital, but you sold your labor for wages. Compensation paid as stock options are an exception, and are a result of New Deal reforms to get more working people bought into the capitalist system, which has been successful, so far. But owning stocks is not the same as owning capital because you still do not control the capital and therefore cannot collect rents. Realize capitalists never directly trade the capital for the labor to operate that capital, unless forced. Historically, only communists have ever forced such a thing.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

As strange as it may seem, the us also has a system that respects the rights of people who want to be homeless nomads. If people want to be homeless due to mental health issues, there is no easy way out if the government is allowed to overrule someone who says ‘No! Don’t help me!’ Very difficult ethical issues all around. In our area, we have shelter beds open and people sleeping in the cold outside of the building…

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
How do you explain the astronomical numbers of homeless people in the US, for example, compared with so many other wealthy nations? Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke?
- seneca 5y ago
  > Are you seriously suggesting that so many millions of Americans just happen to love being homeless? Is this a joke? The person you're replying to didn't say any such things. Your replies on this post have followed a pattern of lazy swipes, and degrade the quality of discussion here.
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    My replies have followed a pattern of logical deduction and clarifying inquiry. Can you answer my questions?

mantas 5y ago

In USSR you couldn't own much, thus rent-seeking was not possible. House ownership was limited per-square-meter (varies on exact period and location). Most rooms/apartments were technically state property and you just rented them. Building „cooperative“ apartments where one would own it was a rather late development. And even then I believe limits of apartments-to-own were in place. On the other hand, room-renting was tolerated in two cases. Resorts (no enough spots in hotels) and university towns (no enough places in dormitories). In resorts locals would move to, for example, garages to make money from renting their own apartments to holiday goers. Students renting was usually old lady business where after your kids are gone and husband dies you rent spare rooms.

refurb 5y ago

Those are some impressive mental gymnastics. Regardless, the USSR was heavy on the “you don’t carry the water, you don’t drink”.