How so? You made a claim that I’m misrepresenting stuff but you gave no reasons. People literally basically can’t own land. They lease the land for their houses from the government. That’s Socialist.
I provided the link showing that in fact you can own land and homes in Singapore.
You do have to actually click on it and read.
No you didn’t. You showed that the people lease their land from the government. That’s not the same thing. It’s weird that you are defending this policy as ownership when it stands against everything you have argued for up to this point. You would never stand for the government owning the land your house was on. I guarantee it.
You didn’t make it through the first paragraph then obviously.
There are two main types of freehold estates. The first is the fee simple. A property owner who owns a fee simple in land, owns the property indefinitely, without the need to pay any rent, and upon his death, the property passes onto his successors. The second freehold estate is the life estate, which is much rarer, and confers ownership for the duration of the person’s lifetime.
“Ownership, not leases”.
Does the person own the land or does the government? Simply put, the government does, even though they try to pass it off as private ownership. https://stackedhomes.com/blog/land-ownership-in-singapore/
So first of all, what you are talking about has to be granted by the government, because the government owns all of the land. However, they don’t release many with this status, so what’s going to happen is the land is going to be more and more lease-based. The reason the land is here is because the government basically forced people to give them their land for “public development”. This is exactly what we were talking about could happen under the Constitution.
In June 1967 the land acquisition act came into effect and this gave the Government the power of compulsory land acquisition for the reason of public development. This also regulated the amount of compensation to landowners who had their properties acquired by the Government. Meaning that the compensation was on the basis of the land’s pre-development value, just imagine that! Not surprisingly, the land acquisition act allowed the Government to acquire land quickly and they were able to gain a total of 177 square kilometres of land, which was about one-third of the total land area of Singapore in 1984. By 1985, the Government had the biggest land ownership in Singapore at 76.2 percent.
and Freehold or Leasehold Property (Singapore Real Estate)
All new land plots released by the Singapore government now have a maximum of 99-years leasehold. There are still existing and new developments built on previously acquired land that are still freehold. But going forwards, the proportion of freehold properties in Singapore will decrease.
And remember, this land is given out based on development restrictions. You must build a house on it. It’s not like you can go and own land for whatever you want. This is all part of a Socialist development project that confiscated almost all of the land from people for “public development” and paid them pre-developmental value for that land. This is what you are defending. Sorry, but it’s not Capitalistic at all and it could happen in our country because nothing in the Constitution stops it.
You didn’t even read your own citation.
It allowed for eminent domain, it doesn’t say anywhere that the gov’t owns all of the land in Singapore and that it is available only by lease.
If you “own it” outright and can pass it to your heirs by any definition that is “ownership”.
Due to the origins of the land law in Singapore, all land ultimately belongs to the state and you can only own an estate or some lesser interest in the land.
It states that the gov’t owns 76% of the land, that means the other 24% is still in private hands.
Tell me where in the constitution it discusses Capitalism. Tell me where it discusses theft or murder. What is your point? The framework, intent and design of our country was established by the…wait for it…wait for it…Framers!
No one is going to argue that the establishment, vision, values and virtues of the United States are Capitalism and none can say that we are anything but a Republic by design.
You may be able to convert an automobile into an airplane, but it will no longer be a car. You may convert the United States into a Totalitarian, Communist country, and you could theoretically still fly the stars and stripes, and call it the USA, but it won’t be America.
It sounds like you are talking about food stamps and the program that manages food stamps? That would be a Socialist program with Capitalist components. There is no Capitalist welfare program.
I remember the campaign of 1988, GHW Bush made “liberal” into an insult (with alot of help from liberals). The libs were insane after 8 years of Reagan and that drove them further into rage.
So, sometime that year I heard a Dan Rather editorial on the radio lamenting that fact, and recommending a change to the terms “Progressive” and “Reactionary.” By then, it was clear that he was a pompous empty liberal, singing off his news show with “courage,” no doubt to his liberal pals who were despondent over their disrepute.
2 Likes
Not if it is preventing more jobs than would have otherwise been available through private industry if its interference didn’t stall the private markets. You’re suggesting Economic Easing, but the New Deal didn’t accomplish Keynesian tactics. FDR didn’t even understand those Economic theories. You oversimplified the subject.
https://medium.com/jvnto/why-did-the-new-deal-fail-66f020c7470f
“The New Deal policies implemented by Roosevelt went a long way in helping to reduce income inequality in America. But, in regards to the task of reviving an economy in crisis, the New Deal was a failure. While debates continue as to whether the interventions were too much or too little, many of the reforms from the New Deal, such as Social Security, unemployment insurance and agricultural subsidies, still exist to this day. If anything, the legacy of the New Deal is that it has helped to create greater equality and welfare in America.”
The only objective info I quoted above was, “[I]n regards to the task of reviving an economy in crisis, the New Deal was a failure.”
Income inequality is a metric directly related to an inherently bias premise that says the proportion of income earned by one individual or population compared to another is relevant. In other words, income inequality assumes that what you make compared to everyone else, especially the top 1% matters; it doesn’t.
First of all, quality of life is not definative; labor is negotiated and income is scalable YoY. Class mobility is real and someone homeless today can be rich tomorrow and vice versa. Each of us are responsible for defining ourselves, our careers and qualities of life.
Therefore, the claim that FDR did lots for “reducing” income inequality just means that the gap between high income and low income shrunk. Well, duh, he taxed the shit out of everyone with anything, stole barrels of cash from the wealthy and diffused the money. In the meantime, the economy was stagnant at best and growth didn’t happen until WWII.
Quality of life didn’t measurably improve, in fact, I’m willing to bet that quality standards decreased throughout the population.
In practical terms, when people go from starving to eating bread, bread is great and sufficient. When everyone owns multiple tvs, computers and cars on average in the US, income inequality is political weapon to justify wealth redistribution for people too passive to negotiate better terms for themselves.
Of course there are outliers to my generalizations, but the premise is universally true.
So, the truth is that FDR was a good speaker that helped the country get through a tough time civilly. He effectively made people feel good about breaking rocks until his grand experiment failed, WWII came and the economy got stimulated by international demand.
Monte* has noting but opinion from his fav leftist sites. No original thought, nothing but backed up hate for the president.
The star behind Monte indicates he’s a perpetual liar.
The two have operated sxs for a very long time, fairly well too.
Please do tell me what that added to the conversation then…
Displace - to take the place of (i.e. supplant)
I say, “Displacing Capitalism with Socialism is not acceptable.”
You respond with them operating side-by-side (sxs). That’s like me saying, “Humans should not replace living on land with living in the sea.” And, you say, “Land and water have coexisted side-by-side and done so quite well.”
What are you talking about? This is exactly why logic vs. emotion doesn’t work. I’m not talking about the coexistence of two types of economic systems, I’m saying, very clearly that the United States are Capitalists. Is there an economic system spectrum? Yes. But, NO ONE would ever classify the economic system in the United States Socialist. At best, you can claim that it is a mixed economy, but then name me a pure economy among economic powers.
No one is arguing that the US economic system is immobile either. It is clear that I am arguing we cannot afford to continue moving in the Socialist trajectory. In fact, we need to do a 180 and continue to unwind many socialist policies.
It should be necessary that all socialist policies expire, or that submitted with socialist policy are exit plans. Just like in business, what is the vision, mission and objectives of the policy and how do we exit the policy once it has succeeded? Are the consequences of implementing the policy going to be greater than the consequences of exiting the policy?
I’m not going to argue that government intervention in private affairs is never necessary. But, the evidence is overwhelming, socialist agendas are typically abysmal disasters whose short term benefits are very rarely outweighed by the long-term consequences.
Right, and my point was that nothing displaced anything, socialism has incrementally increased right along side of our capitalist economy and hasn’t been injurious to it.
Not even close.
Exactly where did this happen with capitalism. The social ownership of the means of production and workers’ self-management as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. All legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines the output and pricing levels of these goods and services.
Socialists contend that shared ownership of resources and central planning provide a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.
Clearly you refer to some other type of system that isn’t socialism.
Monte*
The lies continue.
See but that’s not going to happen. The right has never stopped bitching about the colossal amount of socialist policies brought about during the FDR administration, and consider him one of the worst presidents because of it. But what FDR era social policies have been eliminated?
I did a rough count, but 21 of the 33 programs I counted no longer exist. Of the approximately 1/3 programs that did not desolve, I cannot opinion their success or failure explicitly. But, maybe 3 to 4 of the programs would receive bipartisan support and would be classified “successful” (10%).
I would not reflect on FDR cynically to say that he was a horrible President, because I think that he served his purpose. If anything, few could argue that he wasn’t a good leader that created a single voice most needed at the time.
I’m sure that we were able to recover from the Great Recession because of the life lessons learned from his administrations best efforts.
With that being said, if one was to assume FDR was too socialist in a too Capitalist state then many here are arguing that the inverse is true and that we need to recenter with a like minded Capitalist to FDR and that would be Trump.
FDR got 3 terms in office, let’s at least give Trump his two. In the meantime, the Democratic party needs to get its act together. Gabbartt and Yang seem like reasonable people, although I disapprove of nationalizing education or healthcare and the like.