5 ms·

Maybe the US reached the limit that free market can get a country to. A planned economy works better for the citizens (and consequently for the whole country) t

Maybe the US reached the limit that free market can get a country to. A planned economy works better for the citizens (and consequently for the whole country) than a lobby-based one.

KK7NIL 2y ago
Right, because this time it's different! /s Raising such speculation without any explanation as to why there's even a limit to free market societies, much less any proof that the US is close to reaching such a limit, is very poor pandering.
Loughla 2y ago
I think history has shown that a planned economy isn't really viable long term.
jltsiren 2y ago
If the US has reached the limit of something (which I'm not sure about), it's the limit of a society organized in that one specific way. The US is an old country. It's far older than the current incarnation of China or most European countries. If a country remains stable that long without having to reinvent itself, it may risk stagnation.
- bestouff 2y ago
  US has been built by European people. China civilization was already existing long long ago. Where does your special idea of history come from ?
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    I was not talking about civilizations but countries with their current institutions. The current incarnation of China was born in the late 70s, when Deng Xiaoping managed to consolidate power after generations of chaos. Most major European countries collapsed at least once in the 20th century. The UK was the main exception, but it also fell from a global superpower to a regional power. In contrast, the US still has the same centuries-old constitution, and it hasn't faced a serious challenge to its continued existence since the Civil War.
worik 2y ago
> A planned economy works better for the citizens I do not think so. We have not had an example of a consumer society in a planned economy, that I know of But the Soviet example is illuminating. They had fabulous infrastructure, built the best rockets, the fastest fighter jets, even had very good super computers. But they never made a TV with a remote control. I would love to see a study of consumer appliances in the USSR, but I bet there was a toaster available. One. China may blaze a new trail and show us something new. But now they have returned to "Leader for Life" I am expecting them to return to the days of Mao and loose their edge. Go on China! Prove me wrong!!
- bestouff 2y ago
  It's funny how Americans have difficulty with the "citizen" word and prefer the word "consumer". A working society is made of citizen, not consumers.
  - spwa4 2y ago
    Why? Even now most countries do not have anything like a "citizen". Only 21% of the human population lives in democracies today and that is an all-time-high, not an all-time-low. And if you discount supposed democracies that have a form of apartheid, ie. a portion of the population excluded by law from participation (and thus from effective citizenship), you can at least halve that number. Even an extremely moderate islamic country like Morocco has legal apartheid for non-muslims, even if a majority of the population supports it. Do such countries have citizens? I think it's at best 50% true, and the truth is that Morocco is probably the best and most open islamic society (this, despite the fact that I do believe the large majority of muslims, including in Morocco, do NOT want apartheid anymore, but let's just say extremists don't accept majority votes and kill, so ...). Pakistan is still "a democracy", but has extreme apartheid, and regular attacks against minorities (whether you mean Christians or Afghans by minority) In the vast majority of human history democracies were a rounding error. And it may go back down. At this point, is there really any reason to consider countries Russia, or Egypt, democracies? You have to count both to get to 21%. You'll find you need to count quite a few "democracies with very significant defects" like Pakistan and Russia as normal democracies to get above 10% of the human population. Btw: consumer is still a very positive word. It still means to me that the country is dependent on the approval of the citizens. The difference is what is measured: heads ... or dollar bills. But approval is what really matters. The majority of Russians, Egyptians (and frankly even Moroccans) do not approve of the basic structure of the state they live in. Either they can't change it or they think changing would be a disaster and status-quo is good enough.

Maybe the US reached the limit that free market can get a country to. A planned economy works better for the citizens (and consequently for the whole country) than a lobby-based one.

KK7NIL 2y ago

Right, because this time it's different! /s Raising such speculation without any explanation as to why there's even a limit to free market societies, much less any proof that the US is close to reaching such a limit, is very poor pandering.

Loughla 2y ago

I think history has shown that a planned economy isn't really viable long term.

jltsiren 2y ago

If the US has reached the limit of something (which I'm not sure about), it's the limit of a society organized in that one specific way. The US is an old country. It's far older than the current incarnation of China or most European countries. If a country remains stable that long without having to reinvent itself, it may risk stagnation.

bestouff 2y ago
US has been built by European people. China civilization was already existing long long ago. Where does your special idea of history come from ?
- jltsiren 2y ago
  I was not talking about civilizations but countries with their current institutions. The current incarnation of China was born in the late 70s, when Deng Xiaoping managed to consolidate power after generations of chaos. Most major European countries collapsed at least once in the 20th century. The UK was the main exception, but it also fell from a global superpower to a regional power. In contrast, the US still has the same centuries-old constitution, and it hasn't faced a serious challenge to its continued existence since the Civil War.

worik 2y ago

> A planned economy works better for the citizens I do not think so. We have not had an example of a consumer society in a planned economy, that I know of But the Soviet example is illuminating. They had fabulous infrastructure, built the best rockets, the fastest fighter jets, even had very good super computers. But they never made a TV with a remote control. I would love to see a study of consumer appliances in the USSR, but I bet there was a toaster available. One. China may blaze a new trail and show us something new. But now they have returned to "Leader for Life" I am expecting them to return to the days of Mao and loose their edge. Go on China! Prove me wrong!!

bestouff 2y ago
It's funny how Americans have difficulty with the "citizen" word and prefer the word "consumer". A working society is made of citizen, not consumers.
- spwa4 2y ago
  Why? Even now most countries do not have anything like a "citizen". Only 21% of the human population lives in democracies today and that is an all-time-high, not an all-time-low. And if you discount supposed democracies that have a form of apartheid, ie. a portion of the population excluded by law from participation (and thus from effective citizenship), you can at least halve that number. Even an extremely moderate islamic country like Morocco has legal apartheid for non-muslims, even if a majority of the population supports it. Do such countries have citizens? I think it's at best 50% true, and the truth is that Morocco is probably the best and most open islamic society (this, despite the fact that I do believe the large majority of muslims, including in Morocco, do NOT want apartheid anymore, but let's just say extremists don't accept majority votes and kill, so ...). Pakistan is still "a democracy", but has extreme apartheid, and regular attacks against minorities (whether you mean Christians or Afghans by minority) In the vast majority of human history democracies were a rounding error. And it may go back down. At this point, is there really any reason to consider countries Russia, or Egypt, democracies? You have to count both to get to 21%. You'll find you need to count quite a few "democracies with very significant defects" like Pakistan and Russia as normal democracies to get above 10% of the human population. Btw: consumer is still a very positive word. It still means to me that the country is dependent on the approval of the citizens. The difference is what is measured: heads ... or dollar bills. But approval is what really matters. The majority of Russians, Egyptians (and frankly even Moroccans) do not approve of the basic structure of the state they live in. Either they can't change it or they think changing would be a disaster and status-quo is good enough.