It's definitely about money, but "inequality" makes it sound like the fact that other people out there are wealthy is the cause of antisocial people destroying property to pay for drugs
I would posit that a society of reasonably well-off people would be less likely to steal guardrails for drug money than a society with a lot of poverty.
I would guess certain voting patterns would be different too, for that matter.
Perhaps part of that is: what underlies the inequality? Are folks getting wealthy by good old-fashioned hard work? Or something else?
> The details will seem foreign to many in the West, where building home equity is baked into the system. But the central idea is simple: What if homeownership had no profit motive and no capital gains?
anonymars|5 months ago
I would guess certain voting patterns would be different too, for that matter.
Perhaps part of that is: what underlies the inequality? Are folks getting wealthy by good old-fashioned hard work? Or something else?
tossandthrow|5 months ago
I know it doesn't sit well at the American audience, but there is not such thing as inequality where it doesn't harm the people who has nothing.
The easiest way to understand that is that people need to see yield on their capital - regardless of that means unaffordability for the poor.
anonymars|5 months ago
> The details will seem foreign to many in the West, where building home equity is baked into the system. But the central idea is simple: What if homeownership had no profit motive and no capital gains?