4 ms·

Rich getting mega-rich, and poor remain in poverty. If that is an allegation, then I am a conspiracy freak (I am not). When we speak about USA and you bring Br

Rich getting mega-rich, and poor remain in poverty. If that is an allegation, then I am a conspiracy freak (I am not). When we speak about USA and you bring Brazil in the discussion (whataboutism), you lower the bar. My "ideal" societies (progress, freedom, respect, and other such 'metrics') do NOT include Brazil, China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey. Brazil has selected as a ruler a former army general* who enjoys militarisation and is a fan of a dictatorship. I think the discussion ends here. Brazil may be doing 100 other things "good", but "showed that in 2010, about 6 percent of the Brazilian population lived in favelas and other slums" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela). 6%? Seriously? I (-apologies for the bias-) prefer to hold in highest standards the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a very few more. Although imperfect, still far better standard of Living than other countries/regiions. That said, my ideal society is a Star Trek (TNG) one, where everyone contributes how they can, in a balance matter, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a food replicator and never goes hungry. *to avoid any misunderstanding, I am a honorable discharged army officer (of my country - NATO member), and I respect the Military-ies and what Military represents (protect the integrity of the land/sea/air)(and do NOT interfere in politics) Edit: Brazil is a corrupt nation. Perhaps if the haves start caring for the have-nots, and the poverty/inequality is reduced, education is improved, then in 10-20-30 years Brazil will be VERY different to what it is now. These things take time. Moving to a good direction won't take you there tomorrow.

shripadk 6y ago
> That said, my ideal society is a Star Trek (TNG) one, where everyone contributes how they can, in a balance matter, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a food replicator and never goes hungry. This is where I disagree completely. You are basically advocating for socialism. Socialism has destroyed countries all over the world. I come from a country that practices socialism in most policy implementations that concern society (though we are capitalist in every other way) and literally is a burden on the country. Every resource in the World is finite. You cannot have the case of "never goes hungry" or "free healthcare" without someone having to pay for it and resources being infinite. None of them are true. So how are you going to continue this policy in perpetuity? And do not forget that this is not a one time thing. You would have to account for inflation and disasters that are not in Government control. One pandemic, you have job losses and every bill shoots up. You do not have enough tax payer money to cover every single person in your country when such disasters happen. If it was so easy every country would be implementing it. Even the Nordic nations that tried universal basic income had to abandon it. Free healthcare can be tried out in smaller nations. But do not forget that all these tiny nations that implement such policies are highly dependent on USA. If Trump had enacted a complete lockdown, you would have had all nations that depend on the US suffer big time economically. Then they would be the first to give up socialist policies for pure capitalism.
- cultus 6y ago
  Capitalism is destroying the entire planet. I think it wins that game.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > Capitalism is destroying the entire planet. I think it wins that game. 100 million died due to Communism/Socialism in the past century. But yeah, the bad guy is Capitalism here.
    - cultus 6y ago
      That death count gets inflated every time I see it.
      - shripadk 6y ago
        https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/asreview.htm https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/asreview.htm The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louise Panne, Adrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartooek, and Jean-Louis Margolin. Translated by Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer Harvard University Press / 858 pages / $37.50 The American Spectator Online Bookshelf 15 February 2000 Reviewed by Josh London The End of Communism by Josh London"One death," Joseph Stalin was said to have remarked, "is a tragedy, one million is a statistic." What about, one must wonder, 80 or 100 million deaths? In reading the "Black Book of Communism," a groundbreaking effort by a group of French scholars to document the human costs of communism in the 20th century, one is immediately confronted with such discomfited figures. Stephane Courtois, in his introduction, crunches the numbers: U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths; China: 65 million deaths; Vietnam: 1 million deaths; North Korea: 2 million deaths; Cambodia: 2 million deaths: Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths; Latin America: 150,000 deaths; Africa: 1.7 million deaths; Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths; The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths… The total approaches 100 million people killed.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > 100 million died due to Communism/Socialism in the past century Leninism and it's descendants (I won't quibble over the number, because it's not important since the ascription of blame is wrong as is the dichotomy it's framed as part of), which Socialist (and even Communist) opponents have been calling “State Capitalism” since before the first of those deaths occurred. > But yeah, the bad guy is Capitalism here. Leninism, et al., and Capitalism can both be bad. It's not a binary choice between those two options (as proven by the fact that the the developed world has largely abandoned the system originally described as Capitalism for the modern mixed economy, which while retaining some features, including some problematic ones, of Capitalism significantly mitigates some of it's acute problems; we've already largely chosen a third way, though plenty advocate a return to naked capitalism, there's no reason we couldn't instead choose a fourth.)
shripadk 6y ago
> Although imperfect, still far better standard of Living than other countries/regiions. You should say thank you to Capitalism for that. That is the only reason why you have better standard of living in these countries compared to other countries which have some mix of capitalism/gangster capitalism and socialism/communism. But what you are advocating will take these countries to the drain. It is impossible to fund universal, free health care and food for everyone. No way you can achieve it. It is folly.

shripadk 6y ago

> That said, my ideal society is a Star Trek (TNG) one, where everyone contributes how they can, in a balance matter, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a food replicator and never goes hungry. This is where I disagree completely. You are basically advocating for socialism. Socialism has destroyed countries all over the world. I come from a country that practices socialism in most policy implementations that concern society (though we are capitalist in every other way) and literally is a burden on the country. Every resource in the World is finite. You cannot have the case of "never goes hungry" or "free healthcare" without someone having to pay for it and resources being infinite. None of them are true. So how are you going to continue this policy in perpetuity? And do not forget that this is not a one time thing. You would have to account for inflation and disasters that are not in Government control. One pandemic, you have job losses and every bill shoots up. You do not have enough tax payer money to cover every single person in your country when such disasters happen. If it was so easy every country would be implementing it. Even the Nordic nations that tried universal basic income had to abandon it. Free healthcare can be tried out in smaller nations. But do not forget that all these tiny nations that implement such policies are highly dependent on USA. If Trump had enacted a complete lockdown, you would have had all nations that depend on the US suffer big time economically. Then they would be the first to give up socialist policies for pure capitalism.

cultus 6y ago
Capitalism is destroying the entire planet. I think it wins that game.
- shripadk 6y ago
  > Capitalism is destroying the entire planet. I think it wins that game. 100 million died due to Communism/Socialism in the past century. But yeah, the bad guy is Capitalism here.
  - cultus 6y ago
    That death count gets inflated every time I see it.
    - shripadk 6y ago
      https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/asreview.htm https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/asreview.htm The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louise Panne, Adrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartooek, and Jean-Louis Margolin. Translated by Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer Harvard University Press / 858 pages / $37.50 The American Spectator Online Bookshelf 15 February 2000 Reviewed by Josh London The End of Communism by Josh London"One death," Joseph Stalin was said to have remarked, "is a tragedy, one million is a statistic." What about, one must wonder, 80 or 100 million deaths? In reading the "Black Book of Communism," a groundbreaking effort by a group of French scholars to document the human costs of communism in the 20th century, one is immediately confronted with such discomfited figures. Stephane Courtois, in his introduction, crunches the numbers: U.S.S.R.: 20 million deaths; China: 65 million deaths; Vietnam: 1 million deaths; North Korea: 2 million deaths; Cambodia: 2 million deaths: Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths; Latin America: 150,000 deaths; Africa: 1.7 million deaths; Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths; The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: about 10,000 deaths… The total approaches 100 million people killed.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > 100 million died due to Communism/Socialism in the past century Leninism and it's descendants (I won't quibble over the number, because it's not important since the ascription of blame is wrong as is the dichotomy it's framed as part of), which Socialist (and even Communist) opponents have been calling “State Capitalism” since before the first of those deaths occurred. > But yeah, the bad guy is Capitalism here. Leninism, et al., and Capitalism can both be bad. It's not a binary choice between those two options (as proven by the fact that the the developed world has largely abandoned the system originally described as Capitalism for the modern mixed economy, which while retaining some features, including some problematic ones, of Capitalism significantly mitigates some of it's acute problems; we've already largely chosen a third way, though plenty advocate a return to naked capitalism, there's no reason we couldn't instead choose a fourth.)

shripadk 6y ago

> Although imperfect, still far better standard of Living than other countries/regiions. You should say thank you to Capitalism for that. That is the only reason why you have better standard of living in these countries compared to other countries which have some mix of capitalism/gangster capitalism and socialism/communism. But what you are advocating will take these countries to the drain. It is impossible to fund universal, free health care and food for everyone. No way you can achieve it. It is folly.