someone still had to work for it and pay for it

someone had to do it

so

Right

And they aren't socialist?

@Deleted User its literally not

@Larbi yea i guess, but eh

idk what to call them

i mean

im pretty sure it does

if you cant afford a house since the currency is worthless

that may

potentially

maybe

just maybe

efffect the homelessness population

They still work by capital accumulation, state ownership and managerial structures whereby managers have entrenched power structures.

yea

tbh, idk how you can do it any other way

If the managers were democratically elected then **sure**

@Deleted User there was good faith until you started denying fact

well

you denied fact a while ago

I don't think she was denying fact. I think you both have conflicting sources.

the conflicting sources are due to the government giving out their own numbers, which for *some* reason, are wildly different than any other poll ever made

Then this cannot be an argument on fact can it?

but i wonder how that could've happened <:GWchadMEGATHINK:366999806343774218>

It has to be on theory, pragmatics and principles.

@Larbi i base my numbers off of UN studies and independent studies where possible, so, idk

That seems fair

@Deleted User i sent you like, 8 links

most of which link to their data or mention where they got it

Perhaps food gets rationed?

if it did, everyone would starve

literally everyone

Pretty sure there'd be a genocide already if they were starving for that long

🤷

there kinda has been?

Tbh

idk what you consider a genocide

alot of people have starved already, idk how many