3 ms·
I think what this tells is that capitalism, in our sample size of one, was better capable of withstanding assault. Not that it's a better system, that it serves
by beeboop 5y ago
I think what this tells is that capitalism, in our sample size of one, was better capable of withstanding assault. Not that it's a better system, that it serves people better, or is better at lifting people out of poverty. In fact it the evidence seems the opposite: European countries that are much less free-market and have strong socialist policies are overwhelmingly better places to live than the US for the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged.
To claim that capitalism is the reason for people being lifted out of poverty just seems ridiculous when there's not really a way to show causation.
- dataangel 5y agoYes but if a system consistently fails in response to external pressure then it’s not an equilibrium, which will almost certainly end up being bad for the people under that system as they are conquered, annexed etc.
- notpachet 5y agoWhat a bleak world to inhabit where the primary metric for the value of such a system is whether it can survive inevitable hostilities. We are still such a primitive species in so many ways.
- dataangel 5y agoThere's no reason the conquerors have to be the same species. There's a lot of precedent in all known life, parasites, symbiosis and predator/prey relationships are everywhere. Nor does it have to be a personified antagonist, could be climate change, plague, etc. The longer the system goes the more shocks it has to survive.