Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Monteluna
@monteluna
Looking at the comments here and a lot of the MAGA crowd seems to be loathing at this deal. Considering my political affiliation is the Money Party, I'm not sure how this is bad? So Pakistan received $1.1B, and they are basically using it to maintain their real estate in America, then they found a state to pay them an income with it. Hello, people: That's a good thing! This is a wise investment! This is much better than receiving an IMF loan and building luxury cities in deserts (like Egypt). The real goal of the IMF is to get countries to do productive things with the money they receive, that can turn them a profit and also hedge their risks. We can argue about whether this is the *best* use of funds to maintain New York City real estate, but there's certainly *worse* options! https://x.com/JohnLeFevre/status/1862945830325428535
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Thomas Mattimore
@mattimost.eth
friends in new york i've spoken to about are mostly just appalled that their (high) tax dollars are paying for this.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Monteluna
@monteluna
As my political affiliation is on the Money Team: There is much ado about paying for the homeless in hotels but the reality is if you want a decent city, you have to pay *something* as a social safety net. The mentally ill simply cannot pay for themselves and if you don't pay it, you end up like Boston where people just ride the subway for hours and cause other issues, as well as have medical emergencies like weather exposure. The correct answer is people are just wrong and do need to pay some amount of funds for housing the homeless, and net net its a better investment than paying medical bills. I'm very libertarian but I see this as, "you need to pay for safety and comfort and part of that is paying for people to get some amount of support".
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
