World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Keep beating that war drum US "think tank".
If China doesn’t invade Taiwan there will be no war to be had
China's economy is both weak or strong depending on what narrative is being pushed.
Every economy in the world is slaved to perception. Doesn’t change the fact that in order for a war to happen in the South China Sea, the PRC will have to be the ones to start it.
Do you not see a problem with articles like this that justify their reasoning through bad faith?
The Chinese economy has been doing comparatively worse to how it had been doing previously. The article you sent indicates it’s been doing better than people thought it would be, but it still mentions China’s Albatross, the downturn in their real estate market. They could totally get through that downturn fine but investors are the most uselessly fickle people on the face of the earth
From what I have seen the downturn in the real estate market has been planned. The government over incentivized real estate growth so that private companies would over leverage and then the government could buy up these properties for pennies on the dollar to make them public. Of course western media is going to report on it like the sky is falling, it's a communist country out maneuvering capitalism.
I have plenty of criticism for the CCP but the current real estate market really could be some 3d chess, and if so good for them. We will have to see how it plays out.
Making it public? Where? Never heard that. They stay empty, people own them, it is essentially the only way for them to save on money (investment), hence this massive housing market with the tons of building shells just rotting. Not to mention the extreme quality issues with their tofu dreg.
You dismiss the counter argument because you haven't heard of it?
Buying out bankrupt properties stabilizes the housing market, so makes sense that they do that.
Then renting/selling that space is not making it public...? What an I missing?
What do you consider public housing? Is section 8 not public housing? You realize people in section 8 still pay rent.
Are you aware of what community land trusts are? It's how I was able to become a home owner in my sleepy little hometown of Seattle. Government builds/buys the house, sells it at below market prices to people pre-approved for the program and its first come first sold. You as a homebuyer agree that the house will only be sold to other approved buyers in the program at a fixed rate (there is a small equity increase each year lived in the home to cover upkeep and improvements). The city technically owns the land my house is on, but idgaf because my mortgage is about $1,500 cheaper per month than what a unit of equal size would cost us to rent on the open market. I had no chance in hell of buying. This is the way housing should be for everyone, I had friends forced to move away because their previous years income was literally $1,000 over qualifying for the same program. So when I read "Beijing would impose severe restrictions on who could buy these apartments and would forbid purchasers from trading their units on the open market." it sounds exactly like the program that has given my family a home. That's fucking rad and I wish the US would do the same to expand public housing to 30% of the market, it would do a lot to negate the insanity that is our housing market.
So that is how public housing can be rented or sold and still be public housing.
Does it stabilize the market, yes that's obviously the point. However it's not a bail out ála US too big to fail. The businesses that are insolvent will deal with the consequences and the government gets rock bottom prices.
China is spending 8x more than the US on housing, while we are spending billions funding a genocide, while our homeless problems are magnitudes more than 8x China's and your still trying to justify the war mongering of this "article" with their real estate market. This is not the problem the media is making it out to be.
If that is what public means in this case, then sure, correct. To me, that simply means/meant something else. Like any other public area, where public does not mean government owned and otherwise identical, but instead that everyone can use it - hence public.
Ukraine enters the conversation
Russia invades Ukraine
Tankies: How could NATO do this?
by provoking for years
Clearly if Ukraine didn't want to be invaded they shouldn't have dressed like that
Instead of this"provoking" I assume NATO should have simply attacked instead? You know, like Russia did over and over again?
no, NATO/US should have not provoked, simple as.
russia wanted to join NATO over and over for years.
Provoke how?
What about Russias multiple attacks?
When did Russia ever say they want to join NATO?
ex-nato head said they wanted to over and over again when putin got to power, in the early 2000s, im sure they kept trying for a while. i vaguely remember news about this at the time.
russias multiple attacks came much much later when it became clear they were actually hostile to russia, and because moscow is in a pretty delicate, difficult to defend location, before the aral mountains. even the soviets had this in mind, almost a century ago.
damn, the cia knew war on ukraine would eventually happen if they kept pushing by, like, the late 2000s or something? i'm not sure on the timeline on this one.
Perhaps this read can refresh your memory on wars Russia was involved/started. Perhaps "much much later" turns into "always present".
if we are bringing other small and unrelated conflicts, perhaps this might give an idea of why russia would be hesitant to let NATO/US do whatever they please around them.
i suggest you look up the cia involvement i mentioned for more details on your original question though.
Unrelated? We are specifically discussing Russia and how they, according to you, went to war "much later" and only after it was clear that "the West was against Russia". While both were obviously not the case.
Calling those small... whatever you want.
with the west. bad way to turn smaller conflicts into a big nasty war with nuclear threats going around. meddling and escalating and provoking is never the answer to any of that.
it does seem like its ending with russia taking a big bite of ukraine over though, all that hamfisted destruction for their enemies to accomplish almost nothing
“You made me do this” isn’t just for abusive husbands I guess
like every geopolitical relation works like your family
Good one. The argument is still bullshit that disregards the agency of independent states to freely associate with whomever they choose.
it also disregards the fact russia dont want to be crushed by the us without a fight. putin aint a saint but come on
Great analogy, I'm stealing that.
🤡
indeed.