wizardnamehere

So the last year has seen a pretty decent recovery of the fundamentals of the Argentinian economy after the shock therapy of 2023 and 2024 by Milei.

For context we are talking about:

• A reduction in inflation from 100% to 30%,
• a possible turn around with GDP stagnation (swings from recession to recovery) to a hopefully normal growth of 3-5% a year. It's only been a year of positive growth (2025) so far.
• and some reduction in the poverty levels spike caused by Milei's cuts.
• also some moderately promising trends in unemployment (which preceded Milei by a year).

Personally i'm not that shocked to see a turn around in the numbers after return to some currency stability (hopefull

I'm a market socialist. Which basically means i support works place democracy and see market socialism being achieved through a legal revolutions on how law, courts, and government regards worker's rights, etc.

But, beyond having opinions on leasehold and the belief that urban housing issues are best solved through residential cooperatives, i don't have much knowledge on mutualist economics and in particular mutualist land economics. so what i wanted to know was; how would land be managed, traded, and regulated in use?

Lets say i'm an architecture student about to finish up. Me and some friends decide we want to forget about the whole architecture thing and make cutting edge designed furn

I know there are various official definitions in various official capacities in various polities for what exactly a city is. I mean this question more in the sense of how town and city are used in common language and what people mean when they use these terms. We know NYC is a city. We know a minor mining settlement of 1,000 is a town not a city. We know a hamlet of houses dispersed over farmland is neither of these. But i honestly couldn't give an exhaustive definition for what makes a city beyond arbitrary official numbers. I find it curious how murky the semantics of these terms are. Wondering if anyone has an interesting definition.

Just about everywhere train trips are more expensive than equivalent air travel. They're often more expensive than bus companies too. Now non time sensitive freight companies prefer to move goods from a to b in this order: Shipping>Trains>Trucks>Planes. Theoretically trains are a more energy efficient method of transporting. So the question is. Why are they almost always more expensive than flying for passenger transport? Curious to know why.

I was arguing about something or another on a sub. As does tend to happen, the free market was used as why something was a positive etc. It all got me thinking. What the bloody hell is a free market? Because as a term... Well a market obviously doesn't have autonomy, its not even an object. How could it be free?

I thought a consistent use of the term free market would be a market in which all the exchanges taking place were truly free ( a big ask really). Or more ambitiously, all the people making exchanges are truly free. But i'm not stuck on that. It's certainly not how people use the term that I've seen.

What do you think a free market would be. Or it is just not really useful as a ter

There is what possibly looks like a collins class (or some other small submarine) floating in the middle of Sydney harbour. Weird.

There are plenty of opinions on which particular battle or year was the turning point of the second world war strategically. But i wonder when the second world war was considered by the public in the US and the UK to be a war that the Allies were winning. At what point did elite or public opinion become optimistic about the war?