this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
186 points (98.4% liked)

GenZedong

4242 readers
83 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

US is one of the largest countries in the world and it can accomodate more housing than China could able to. Note : Russia still has 87 percent ownership rate ๐Ÿคฃ

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[โ€“] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

US has a lot of good terrain to build, unlike china that has a difficult terrain to build on.

i think his point is that usa can very easily provide housing for everyone but it chooses not to.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This post is not about homelessness, but home ownership.

[โ€“] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[โ€“] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I dont understand the point of your comment. Also it reads overly antagonistic

Post about homeownership rate, showing china is among highest

General comment about US availability of land vs China's, hinting that US could do a lot better

You asking about the point of said general comment

Another offers explanation. Mind you home ownership is a "higher bar to clear" than mere getting rid of homelessness, because you could get rid of homelessness without having high home ownership

You for some reason clarifying that's not about homelessness, but home ownership? (The formal writing style makes it read like you're unnecessarily antagonistic and pedantic)

[โ€“] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

well, if u are homeless, perhaps we can infer that you don't own a house ยฏ_(ใƒ„)_/ยฏ

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

No relation between the two, surely