What evidence would you accept? Because you act as though you've already convinced yourself it's not real and wouldn't accept any evidence to the contrary. What, precisely, would convince you that you're wrong, if firsthand accounts aren't good enough?

Removed by mod

you seem like you’re pretty supportive of the violent authoritarian USian regime

Where, precisely, did I suggest that at all?

“Freedom of the press” is a joke

Yes, I know that's what China believes. That's why it's so important.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Horseshoe theory doesn't make sense. That's the thing.

Until suddenly you start seeing people who call themselves leftists denying genocide. Which is something we usually think of as being a quality of the far-right.

(The obvious solution here, of course, is that these people who call themselves leftists...aren't. Because if leftism is about equality, there's nothing equal about subjecting a people and preventing the continuance of their culture.)

🙄

You've already proven not to be interested in accepting evidence. So what more value is there in trying to provide any?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Tankies on Lemmy like to pretend China isn't committing genocide against Uyghurs.

Thus I do not accept claims about “genocide” committed by the US’ main rival without good evidence

It's very easy to say this, because it means you can just reject any evidence to the contrary as "not good" or "biased".

Separating children from their parents. Raising them to be assimilated with the majority culture. Clamping down on their expression of their culture. These are all acts of genocide.

The most untrustworthy source here is the Chinese government themselves. Any report from a country should be treated with scepticism, but none more so than when that country clamps down on the free press.

We have so many reports out of Xinjiang. Leaks from people in the province itself. Reports from the family of people there. Evidence inferred from satellite imagery and what information is publicly available from the Chinese government. There's just no denying it. You can choose to pretend China's doing nothing wrong if you like. I hope you sleep well, knowing you're defending genocide.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

But fixing rents just makes landlords like me want to exit the market completely

Exit the market completely...and do what? Not rent the home out at all? Well, for starters, that would mean you're leaving way more money on the table than you would be if you kept renting it out at a reasonable rate. But even besides that, the policy advertised here is in addition to Sriranganathan's pre-existing policy of increased rates on unoccupied homes.

And sell it? Well, the new owner is going to be one of: a first-time home-owner, a moving home-owner, or a different investor. In the first case, that's someone who is no longer renting, so the difference between the number of homes available and the number of renters remains the same. In the last case, that new investor is going to be renting it out, something the old owner was apparently unwilling to do. So it's completely neutral. If it's a moving home-owner, their old home is being bought by someone else, which takes us back to the top of this paragraph.

the same number of tenants are competing for a smaller and smaller number of rentals

This part is just completely wrong. It displays a severe lack of critical thinking on the part of the many people who are saying things like it. It's like they think that landlords are actually providing the service of providing housing. When really, the service provided by landlords is merely maintenance of existing housing.

Lower the interest rates again and rents will drop

Will they? I've never seen it happen. At best, lower interest rates might lower the rate at which they continue to rise. But as you already know (since you did watch the video before commenting on it...right?), many landlords are increasing rent at much higher than the rate that interest rates have risen, so that argument really doesn't hold much water.

For sure, the tack taken by the RBA is gross, and they need a new model that considers the effect on the actual people, rather than merely robotically applying economic theory from the 1980s. But there are a lot of problems with the economy which are being exposed at the moment, and trying to play these "but whatabout..." games when people are focusing on one area only serves to undermine progress.