• davel@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh Garretts, that’s Chile’s 🇨🇱 flag, not China’s 🇨🇳.

    • MonkRome@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      India is often dishonest with their data. Many politicians will lie to save face. But even if the numbers are “real”, it’s worth asking yourself what they are considering a home. Plenty of people live in scrap houses on land they don’t own, are they “homeowners” in this data. India has squatters rights, if they can’t be removed from someone else’s property they’ve lived in for decades are they “homeowners” in this data? If someone’s has a live in servant who has a separated house on their property, are they “homeowners”? My guess is that india is defining homeowners very loosely.

    • lastweakness@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, it’s probably misreporting and probably also, “well they have a tiny hut for all members of the family in this god forsaken village while being stuck in eternal poverty, but that’s enough to call it a house”

    • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nobody “owns” land. Even under capitalism. If you think you do, stop paying the rent tax you pay the government in order to “own” that land and see what happens.

      Point is, even if you “own” a house, if the government decides they want to confiscate it, they have a whole army to do it. All ownership is always at the mercy of the government. (More accurately, ownership is at the mercy of whoever has the monopoly on violence, since they can only take ownership through it.)

      • pbbananaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just curious - what happens after that 70 years is up? I get to keep my property in perpetuity and pass it down generations as long as I pay my taxes. Is there any such guarantee in China?

      • JargonWagon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        “…if the government decides they want to confiscate it, they have a whole army to do it.”

        This feels pretty random to include. Did I miss something? Has the army been kicking people out of homes lately?

        • pbbananaman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The downvotes without comments to support the criticism speaks volumes.

          I think people here have this dream picture of China or something but that country seems to get the shit end of both sticks when it comes to housing. Expensive housing driven by a capitalist development framework and no guarantees to support to investment into the real estate you buy. That’s why Chinese citizens with money actually invest in real estate outside of China.

  • Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not a very useful measure if a country has cheap and reliable publicly owned rental apartments. I would prefer rental because it’s easier to leave.