3 ms·

Capitalism just has too many advantages, and closer mirrors human nature with our desire to take risks and build our own ideas. Socialism takes too much contro

Capitalism just has too many advantages, and closer mirrors human nature with our desire to take risks and build our own ideas. Socialism takes too much control away from people, stifles creativity, and IMO doesn't mach human nature. A hybrid system is ideal, or something even new that takes what works from both. For starters, a wealth and income threshold is needed. No individual human needs hundreds of millions of dollars let alone cash, and none of them directly earned or deserve that much. Everything past the threshold can be redistributed.

Convolutional 3y ago
> Capitalism just has too many advantages, and closer mirrors human nature It mirrors human nature? From the time of the early cave paintings tens of thousands of years ago to the rise of the class system 10,000 years ago, social classes did not even exist. Even 1000 years ago there were no capitalist societies. Odd how an economic system which "mirrors human nature" is so recent. In France I watched the yellow vests protest economic conditions and then the more recent strikes. Lula just took over in Brazil, and most (not all) of Latin America is run by governments of a like mind. Also 2022 did not see an expansion of trade, but Russia being cut off from it, and steps to cut China off from it (chip ban). The capitalist economic system may have a short life span.
snvzz 3y ago
Public universal health, transport, education, basic housing (bed and desk, with shared showers and toilets) so that nobody is homeless, I can get behind. I'd even add a small, fanless computer running open source software and with internet access. Increasing taxes on a ladder, I can understand. High taxes (50%) past a certain point, I can understand. Even universal income. >For starters, a wealth and income threshold is needed. No individual human needs hundreds of millions of dollars let alone cash, and none of them directly earned or deserve that much. Everything past the threshold can be redistributed. Absolutely not. Any country that does this would have me (and most people who actually value hard work) leaving. The idea should be to provide the basics (as above) to everybody, and not more. So that they can live a basic life, acquire skills, and potentially get an actual job and the benefits that come with it.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  "Any country that does this" would eventually be all countries.
  - snvzz 3y ago
    How would that even work, without suppressing democracy?
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      Eventually all or most governments would adopt this new system if it worked, just as most governments today have implemented some form of democracy and free market. Nothing really to do with democracy, honestly, although on that note democracy is not a great system and needs to be replaced with something better.
      - snvzz 3y ago
        >with something better. Like plutocracy?
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        No, something new.

Convolutional 3y ago

> Capitalism just has too many advantages, and closer mirrors human nature It mirrors human nature? From the time of the early cave paintings tens of thousands of years ago to the rise of the class system 10,000 years ago, social classes did not even exist. Even 1000 years ago there were no capitalist societies. Odd how an economic system which "mirrors human nature" is so recent. In France I watched the yellow vests protest economic conditions and then the more recent strikes. Lula just took over in Brazil, and most (not all) of Latin America is run by governments of a like mind. Also 2022 did not see an expansion of trade, but Russia being cut off from it, and steps to cut China off from it (chip ban). The capitalist economic system may have a short life span.

snvzz 3y ago

Public universal health, transport, education, basic housing (bed and desk, with shared showers and toilets) so that nobody is homeless, I can get behind. I'd even add a small, fanless computer running open source software and with internet access. Increasing taxes on a ladder, I can understand. High taxes (50%) past a certain point, I can understand. Even universal income. >For starters, a wealth and income threshold is needed. No individual human needs hundreds of millions of dollars let alone cash, and none of them directly earned or deserve that much. Everything past the threshold can be redistributed. Absolutely not. Any country that does this would have me (and most people who actually value hard work) leaving. The idea should be to provide the basics (as above) to everybody, and not more. So that they can live a basic life, acquire skills, and potentially get an actual job and the benefits that come with it.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
"Any country that does this" would eventually be all countries.
- snvzz 3y ago
  How would that even work, without suppressing democracy?
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Eventually all or most governments would adopt this new system if it worked, just as most governments today have implemented some form of democracy and free market. Nothing really to do with democracy, honestly, although on that note democracy is not a great system and needs to be replaced with something better.
    - snvzz 3y ago
      >with something better. Like plutocracy?
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        No, something new.