the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
It does because you're claiming that the system that America is the best example of: letting the free market run food security, is superior to what China is doing. This is an incorrect statement as proven by statistics.
Putting words in my mouth.
Also you used a different metric from the metric I used. China and America have the exact same (2.5%) hunger rate using the same source. Typical Hexbear lying.
What is this, if not support for a more laissez faire approach?
What is (33 million divided by 330 million) multiplied by 100?
You're using a different source than I used. Look at the US hunger rate under the same definition as the China hunger rate. Different sources have looser ways of defining hunger.
The united states government has a looser way of defining hunger in their own country than a shady investment website that doesnt even have https? Didn't they teach you how to choose reliable sources of information in highschool?
You're being facetious: How do you expect underpaid, overworked farmers to turn a profit and provide for their families if you're making them grow a bunch of dirt cheap rice?
There is no other way to interpret this comment other than demanding the farmer(s) sell the product of their choice at the market, favoring the individual over the collective here.
Because the PRC is still a developing country, and their hunter rate was much worse in the past, that means (pretending your lies and misdirection are real) they are improving to close the gap and ensure food security.
Again, all of your posts boil down to:
The government could make them grow green rice but give them extra money to make up for it. Farmers deserve fair pay. Of course, the millionaires and billionaires of the CCP wouldn't want that.
Source?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/china-parliament-billionaires.html
Oops I assumed the CCP and parliament were the same thing. Anyways:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1746362/china-latest-communist-party-billionaires-spt
41 billionaires in government is 41 too many for a """"socialist"""" state idiot.
Don't call people idiots, that's very rude and Bernie would be angry at you.
Then immediately ban billionaires and redistribute the wealth. Not too fucking hard it's a dictatorship they can do whatever they want.
Why hasn't President Xi answered my request for Catgirls then? He said he'd fucking do it smh
No, like the implication that the government wont subsidizing or give benefits to the farmers who grow green rice. Because it sounds made up tbh