Asklemmy

47099 readers

1815 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Why aren’t any government making wealth inequality and property supply focused policies? (lemm.ee)

submitted 6 days ago by WyckedKaos@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Why can’t any government in the world aim to tax ultra rich more whilst making easier for small to medium large businesses to thrive. And policies on property supply rather than property buyers like all sorts of first time buyers programs.

Why are only same old policies keep being peddled when the world is still going to shit?

That doesn’t involve reducing the government size and budget entirely or subscribing to any extreme left or right?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

You can talk about June 4th, 1989 in China. Chinese usually call it the "June 4th incident," which is what the government uses when referencing it in official statements on the subject.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

And they can talk about it on its own terms (that is, more truthfully) because they don't have the obligatory ritual of painting the entire picture the CIA gave foreign media before they can talk about the actual facts.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Think you mean can talk, not can't, correct? In which case, I agree.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yes, sorry. I phrased it differently on the first write and forgot to cancel the negative before posting, thanks for pointing it out.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 days ago

No worries!