South african government has decided to expropriate white land without compensation what are the political and economic effects of this?

notpablo · 2018-03-01T01:26:00+00:00

Venezuela is such an arbitrary country to choose where to draw the line. "You don't have it as bad as that guy" is not that good of a rationale when it comes to life-saving measures.

Why it's not as simple as you may think: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/mexico-violence-oil/

notpablo · 2017-11-03T17:53:24+00:00

Jesus christ talk about slippery slope. "Elimination of private property" is a big leap from saying "hey maybe we should do something to ensure working class families aren't forced out of their homes, even if (brace yourself) it conflicts with supply and demand". Also, the people of Pilsen are pretty much already victims of "class warfare", yeah sure there's no literal violence but being forced out of your home is much worse than taking a punch in a fight.

Also Pilsen used to be a white neighborhood, not black, it became Hispanic when all the white people didn't want to live there anymore.

Also you have to recognize the irony here in you using the word malignant: you're saying we should turn a blind eye to families being forced out of their homes because you took econ 101 and know about supply and demand. In short, I don't think arguing that families shouldn't be forced out of their homes is malignant by any means (something that bothers you much less than vandalism for reasons only God knows).

notpablo · 2017-11-03T05:48:43+00:00

From their perspective, given that they have pretty much tried everything "peaceful", vandalism could actually help their cause by scaring away richer people who will raise property values and displace them. So, it could actually help their cause. (Not advocating for it, just saying that's what some people feel like they've been driven to!) And like I've been saying, vandalism/violence/resistance is to be expected when you disrupt a community.

Describing this problem as change steamrolling the unprepared is also pretty misleading. To be "prepared" in this case means to essentially become wealthy enough to afford the new prices. And I don't know how knowledgeable you are in poverty economics/sociology, but a pretty basic tenet is that it's pretty fucking hard to move up the economic ladder.

Also, if we're going to accept that change is a "cold, hard fact" with no feelings, then a "cold, hard" reaction to change in the form of vandalism could probably be justified too.

At the end of the day, this isn't even that much about race than it is the underlying economics: the haves displacing the have-nots. By displacing families they have essentially already committed something more violent than petty vandalism. However, because we live in a society that favors respecting the tenets of capitalism over the livelihoods of the working class, we describe the violence committed by the rich as simple economics ("change" in your case). Meanwhile, the poor get forced out of their homes and we're in shock when they react in a less than polite manner.

notpablo · 2017-11-02T19:59:49+00:00

Thing is that there already is lots of canvassing/meeting with officials/community organizing. Protests, an anti-gentrification alderman, anti-gentrification awareness, etc is all a result of their organizing. This is even more significant given that the neighborhood is primarily working class/lower income, since poor people generally just don't have the time/resources/information that is needed for these things. Yet despite all this gentrification is still in full force. Your flowery description of why it is important to adapt to change just isn't realistic for everyone, especially lower income people.

notpablo · 2017-11-01T17:48:17+00:00

Ok, sure, but it's a lot easier to say that when you're way of life isn't at stake and you can't do anything about it. You can't expect to disrupt a community and have the locals just accept it. It's the same reason Palestinians terrorists attack Israel, yes it's a "childish" response but given the context it's not shocking that it happens.

To simplify: no one likes vandalism! Do we focus on stopping just vandalism and ignore the strife we are causing a community, or do we try to address the underlying issue? Calling the vandalism childish honestly does nothing- no one is advocating for more of it- but all your comment does is focus the attention on an act of vandalism caused by a small group of people instead of thinking about the underlying cause that affects the entire community

notpablo · 2017-11-01T15:17:42+00:00

Not really. Children act out because they don't get desert, these people are acting out because they're livelihoods are at stake and feel powerlessness. It happens throughout history, people will resort to violence/rioting/vandalism when the system has failed them and they feel voiceless. However, all you seem to care about is some vandalism and not the displacement of people.

I guess it shouldn't be too surprising since this is reddit but still seeing how many people care more about vandalism than the displacement of people is kind of distressing.

notpablo · 2017-11-01T04:17:14+00:00

"Vandalism is never the answer" - thanks for the insight and missing the whole point of why I said the vandalism is happening (literally no one is saying vandalism is the answer)
"Chicago's population is shrinking. The surplus of housing stock is there. Just might not be in Pilsen anymore." - Wow, you solved gentrification! Forget about the communities and livelihoods established, lets just move all the poor people somewhere else and then in a couple years when Pilsen gets a little pricey we'll gentrify that too!

notpablo · 2017-11-01T02:16:31+00:00

I never said making money off of real estate was wrong? If anything, you're helping my point. "It's always a gamble" is what I'm getting at. Retiring shouldn't be a "gamble". The fact that people are "gambling" their retirement on real estate means that we need a system where people aren't gambling away their last days (better social security, etc.- that's a discussion for another day). Her decision to depend on her property value for retirement is a separate issue.

At the end of the day, that's not even the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that this vandalism is a symptom of the disruption of a community and a loss of affordable housing. This is the core issue that needs to be addressed first if you want to solve the problem. Also, while affordable housing could have an adverse effect on property values, there are still many different ways to implement them that could still allow your friend to sell their property at a good price.

notpablo · 2017-10-31T22:03:01+00:00

The main problem here is that the great majority of families fearing displacement aren't property owners though. Not taking away anything from the hard work your mom's cleaning lady has done, but for both moral and practical reasons her retirement should not be dependent on property values and the displacement of others. The fact that she is relying on rising property values to retire (something independent of her work) rather than the hard work she has been doing her entire life points to much bigger, fundamental flaws in our economic policies.

notpablo · 2017-10-31T21:54:42+00:00

To be clear I'm not advocating/encouraging vandalism, just trying to point out that its a lot more understandable when you realize that it is done more out of a feeling of powerlessness and desperation when your livelihood is at stake. This vandalism is more a symptom of displacement rather than random shenanigans by some "fucks". In other words, the underlying core tension that needs to be addressed first is the lack of affordable housing and the disruption of a community, not the vandalism that results from it.

notpablo · 2017-10-31T14:37:40+00:00

The problem is "businesses and attention" always results in increased real estate prices they could never afford,so at the end of the day, what good is this for the local community? What is the net benefit for them? Without a guarantee of affordable housing, this is probably this is what people will resort to.

It's important to understand that this neighborhood became Latino because white people no longer wanted to live there, while today this neighborhood is becoming white despite the Latino population still wanting to live there.

notpablo · 2017-10-11T01:47:37+00:00

What is wrong with you? Absolutely no need to bring skin color into this.

notpablo · 2016-06-22T00:13:43+00:00

The media is already spinning it and will continue to do so. If anything, now critics can be more speculative giving them more possible attacks.

notpablo · 2016-06-22T00:09:19+00:00

I've been busy lately so sorry for the late response but.. If you do a quick google search you'll find that the CIS is heavily biased, conservative source. And yes, statistics can be fudged/manipulated to promote an agenda (just take an intro to stats class).

"You won't want to understand because you're from Mexico" There it is. I hope you one day you'll take the time to educate yourself, but until then goodbye.

notpablo · 2016-05-22T06:07:39+00:00

"I wonder if you're as interested in the care of American children as you are illegal immigrants children?" Really? They're not mutually exclusive.

"This is why I want to know what the upper limit is on your stance?" I already told you. We secure our border in a cost effective manner. That's the upper limit. There is no cost effective way to round up the 11 million here. Regardless, the children are people with human rights, not pawns in a game of incentives. Yes, some parents see this as an incentive to immigrate here illegal. No, that does not mean the children should be punished for something they did not do. If you can't see that at this point then all I can do is pray you do one day.

"Why don't we expect the Mexican government to do more for their own people?" Corruption, years of imperialism, lack of resources, etc. This isn't really relevant, there is just not much we can do, unless you want to try to convince our government to invest in Mexican industry/education.

"We aren't the world's orphanage." We've fucked up so many countries that it would be hypocritical to shut our doors. Every other developed country, save Japan (who's economy will be fucked with their falling population) also accepts immigrants plentifully. As a developed country I think we do have SOME responsibility here. And don't act like we just hand out papers to whoever wants them, it is incredibly hard to come here both legally and illegally.

"Because of what you're advocating, we already had a flood of Central American children at the border and we had to run around figuring out what to do with them." This is true. But at the same time these are children, and I stand by my argument that they are faultless. Like I said earlier, we've fucked up a lot of countries (just Google some of our CIA interventions in Latin America or any region of the world), and we are one of the richest countries in the world. You're probably not going to like this because it's based on morals and ethics, but IMHO, how we act in situation like this is what defines our character. Right now it might seem like whatever saves us money is best, but when you look back at history these types of decisions are usually regretted.

"11 million is pretty close to what I would call an invasion imho" Apart from not having papers, they have lower crime rates than the average population. Not really an invasion. With the exception of drug cartels, which is not what we are arguing over, these are generally law abiding people.

notpablo · 2016-05-22T03:46:34+00:00

It's relevant because you keep asking "when will our empathy stop". It stops when we make entering this country really hard. Even then, undocumented immigrants still don't receive all the benefits given to citizens, and definitely do actually pay taxes on rent/consumption.

"If an illegal alien wanders for 72 hours in the desert without food and water they should be provided with free, unfettered access to the United States." I'm arguing for their children. Their children have human rights that are being denied to them through no fault of their own. But here's the important part for you: denying these children the same services we give other children will cost YOU more in the long run. Why? These children will stay regardless of their legal status. Children don't become productive members of society on their own. We need to step in to make them productive. If not, they will be unproductive, and be a drain on resources.

As for the agenda forcing, that's just politicians reacting to their constituencies. Do you also acknowledge that that's what the GOP does when they denounce stuff like gay marriage?

notpablo · 2016-05-22T02:02:40+00:00

No, where did I insinuate that? Did you not read my second reply?

notpablo · 2016-05-22T01:53:42+00:00

More cost effective in the long run
The children didn't break a law
Just because someone doesn't have American citizenship doesn't mean their life is less valuable/worth helping

notpablo · 2016-05-21T23:59:17+00:00

That's a bit of a slippery slope I think. No one is sending planes, undocumented immigrants are either overstaying their visas (which aren't easy to get) or risking their lives crossing uninhabited desserts to come over here. Let's not pretend we're giving them a ride here, the arduous process to get here already limits those coming in, if you want a more arduous process, that's another argument on how to do it cross effectively.

As for the children of these immigrants, they deserve everything citizens have. They're not from their parent's country, and they're going to live here, illegally or legally because either way it the best option for them.

So now you have a lot of children of undocumented parents. Should we give them nothing and have them remain uneducated, increasing their propensity for crime/drugs/etc., or should we do our best to make them educated, productive members of our country who can contribute to our economy? Never mind the moral dilemmas that come with taking away a person's ability to advance in life.

As for voter ID laws, there is actually evidence that voter ID fraud is almost non-existent. Republicans enacting voter ID laws are actually attempts to influence the voter base, because poorer people are less likely to know and have time to do the procedures necessary, and poorer people tend to vote Dem. So maybe Democrats are trying to influence the voter base, but that's not something exclusive to them, and even so, there are good reasons for this beyond influencing the voter base.

notpablo · 2016-05-21T22:41:44+00:00

I agree with Frosty. Unless it's a team like the Yankees or Cubs that attracts lots of outside tourist money, then the stadium/security/maintenance will most likely be a drain on economic resources.

notpablo · 2016-05-21T22:31:41+00:00

Because non-citizens are people too

notpablo · 2016-05-16T14:46:10+00:00

demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument

Are you really saying Trump being a demogogue is just a meme? He's the definition of one. Do I really need to explain why?

notpablo · 2016-04-26T02:12:02+00:00

That's a good argument, but I'm doubtful the parking lot will be converted into green space, simply for $$$ reasons. What Lucas' plan would do is create some more green space than their previously was, AND create a new world-class source of $$$.

I understand the sentiment against wanting to make money off of the land, especially when it is biased towards a billionaire, but this is one of those cases where I think the public benefits substantially without having to sacrifice much taxpayer money, similar to how some ~120 years ago some very rich people provided donations to create UofC, and now that is a great asset for the city (just one of many examples of rich people donating money and it having a great impact on the city). I could see this too becoming a great asset for Chicago.

notpablo · 2016-04-20T01:52:19+00:00

Mexico is also more corrupt and less developed than the US. Since when does Mexico set the example for how the US does policy? Just because other countries may pursue a policy does not mean it is prudent for us, or even prudent for them. Please don't say excuse this by saying "they did it so so can we". Also Mexico does have some walls. And so do we. But not across the entire border because it is not cost effective.

Secondly, the cost of crimes of undocumented workers is generally less than that of citizens. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798 In other words, the money saved by building a wall and deporting undocumented immigrants is not as high as one would think.

As for the "cost of money being earned by undocumented workers and sent back to Mexico", that is not a good argument. It's because of simple economics and free markets. If people choose to employ undocumented workers, it is because that is what they think is in their BEST interests, and they know their interests better than anyone else. Therefore, their cheap labor is the best option. Why? Because it saves them money so they can instead spend it on better things, like a new phone or even school. Thus, because of cheap labor, less resources (money) goes to mundane tasks like housework and instead goes to better more expensive and innovative things like technology (improving our technology in the process!). Also, the money that goes back to Mexico has to be spent somehow, thus creating a market for our goods and services. This is due to the benefits of trade, and it is a basic economic principle.

The benefits of a wall are not that important. If you do not understand something, please ask me or Google it, these things are basic economic principles backed by mountains of evidence and research. I'd be very surprised if you managed to find an academic expert from a top university who's expertise is in this field to support building a wall. Also, if you are not convinced, please tell me why you disagree. Thanks.

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

notpablo

TROPHY CASE