jahaja

13 ms·

61.
by jahaja 6y ago
I'm pretty sure that you are just a troll, but how do you substantiate this outrageous claim?
62.
by jahaja 6y ago
I guess I misunderstood you? Because that's what I'm saying. That it would require substantial wealth to be able to have significant control over your own care.
63.
by jahaja 6y ago
"Far less control over your own care" implies a very small, and wealthy, subset of the population.
64.
by jahaja 6y ago
Yes, but vastly different. Universal health care certainly won't come with a dozen pages of fine-print. It doesn't have pricing levels either. You won't hear: "Oh, you should've chosen our premium plan for that!&quo
65.
by jahaja 6y ago
No. I never said anything about Spain and southern europe. Overall unemployment isn't worse historically. Not sure why you cherry-pick youth as if it invalidates the overall stat somehow. But even that stat isn't worse historicall
66.
by jahaja 6y ago
"Have health insurance" is not comparable with "is covered by universal health care" without a lot of clarification. 1. It's dependent on employment. 2. It comes with various forms of limits, out of pocket payments,
67.
by jahaja 6y ago
Northern Europe haven't had significantly more unemployment even though the labour costs and regulations are much better than in the US. How would you explain that?
68.
by jahaja 6y ago
> Free markets are based on voluntary cooperation. Indirect coercion due to lack of the means of subsistence is not voluntary. > Socialism is based on forced cooperation. It's not. Socialism is not Stalinism.
69.
by jahaja 6y ago
> so the trend now becomes 'equity result', which will make nobody wants to work hard anymore, that's socialism at its worse. Do you have a source for this? I'm very very left I haven't seen something like this
70.
by jahaja 6y ago
So your take is that the poor is just intellectually inferior? What a 200 year aristocrat throw back.
71.
by jahaja 6y ago
"Harsh" is very relative. I would be very surprised to see anyone caught using drugs for the first time, or even the 3rd time, not just getting a fine unless they're in possession of a larger quantity. The maximum sentence is
72.
by jahaja 6y ago
Sigh, and we're back to vague generalizations with zero effort nor intent to go beyond superficialities: > What’s wrong with it is every time someone tries this it ends up hell on earth. No surprise that you latch on to tone policin
73.
by jahaja 6y ago
What a pathetic non-reply. Those are direct questions to vague statements you made in that comment. It's clear now that you're not going substantiate anything since it would just display your ignorance.
74.
by jahaja 6y ago
Could you be less vague and specify examples of people and ideas that you are referring to? It's hard to reply to these vague generalizations. Who are these people that are not arguing for implementing their ideas democraticly? What
75.
by jahaja 6y ago
Finally. So it's just about the USSR and its off-springs as I thought. Deny? I'm not denying anything, I'm saying that you're projecting those things onto people with fundamentally different ideas, a.k.a democratic ideas
76.
by jahaja 6y ago
So which "whirls" killing millions are you referring to?
77.
by jahaja 6y ago
Why are you being deliberately obtuse? The sentence I quoted: > I don't know but I'm not sure we should keep trying as millions of people end up dead every time someone gives it another whirl. What is this sentence referring to
78.
by jahaja 6y ago
So what are you referring to with that sentence?
79.
by jahaja 6y ago
The problem here is that too many of the detractors of socialism only recognizes a single version of it, a.k.a USSR and its off-spring. It doesn't matter how much democratic socialists were against it (and persecuted by it) at its ince
80.
by jahaja 6y ago
> I don't know but I'm not sure we should keep trying as millions of people end up dead every time someone gives it another whirl. This reflexive comment regarding any sort of resemblance of socialism?
81.
by jahaja 6y ago
You're projecting Stalinism onto people who are fundamentally seeking more democracy. It just shows your own ignorance, wilful or not.
82.
by jahaja 6y ago
I see no reason at all why corporatist, crony, regulatory capture etc Capitalism isn't the natural outcome of capitalist capital accumulation (and thus power). The incentives to pursue those things seem completely logical to me.
83.
by jahaja 6y ago
> A lot of the program seems to have rested on subsidies and incentives, which are nice ways of saying you're relying on a profit or investment motive. I mean that's just an implementation issue. To scale fast at that time, the
84.
by jahaja 6y ago
> it seems to rest heavily on profit motives What part are you referring to? > I would love an example of housing for everyone in locations that meets their needs, achieved in a timely manner, in a way that removes profit and investme
85.
by jahaja 6y ago
This just confirms my point even further.
86.
by jahaja 6y ago
Uhm. The economy is no deity. Man made and man can change it. Growth (GDP) is not a measurement of human happiness or even living standards, just capitalism.
87.
by jahaja 6y ago
Sure, there's additions. But I would be careful to deduce consumer choice from what is most risk-free/profitable, a.k.a. the market. Cheap, decent quality "projects" would also be rented out in no time. But the profit ma
88.
by jahaja 6y ago
This is a good start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme
89.
by jahaja 6y ago
Yes, Sweden ~1990. There was an agency responsible for adapting housing availability after need. If there was a shortage, it was acted upon. Then the whole homeownership wave, markets etc came.
90.
by jahaja 6y ago
Sorry but to imagine that labour costs and unions are somehow responsible for the housing shortage is just a strange distraction. We had labour unions in Sweden with good working conditions & benefits etc etc all along that period. The

More ›