4 ms·
I think it's the same as the "gentrification" arguement made in the US. The "ultimate" gentrifiers in the US being SF Googelers who move to cheap rural areas. (
by Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
I think it's the same as the "gentrification" arguement made in the US. The "ultimate" gentrifiers in the US being SF Googelers who move to cheap rural areas. (So to speak, I'm not picking sides here.) What's more gentrifying than literal oil barrens setting up their 8th home in your neighborhood? Don't like it? Just own a hundred billion dollar (or trillion dollar) oil company to compete! Notably, in realtion to the linked article, china does not sell land at all but leases it for 99 years. That is for thier own citizens; I'm not sure if or to what extent foriegners can "buy" land in china at all.
- prvit 4y agoOf course, but this is not a reasonable take. The foreign money isn’t to blame for gentrification, local policymakers are.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y agoCan you explain your point more? You innitialy said you don’t know how anyone could reasonably see the London city center being divided between Arabic and Russian oil oligarchs as a negative. I reaponded that people do not like that by the fact that the London city center has been split between billionaries it necessarily means that others cannot live there. I compared it to the gentrification argument happening in the US. I'm not clear on which part is not reasonable based on your comment. More importantly you innitially said what is happening could not be seen as a negative. Now you are saying that it is a negative but the blame rests on policy makers and not oligarchs. When did I say who the blame fell on? And how do you explain the change in your argumet from the London city center being divided between Arabic and Russian oil oligarchs not being a negative to now being a negative?