Majority thinks Capitalism SUCKS.

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
28,146
Points
113

Attachments

  • 1579550094981.png
    1579550094981.png
    20.9 KB · Views: 128
They respond to these surveys from their fancy smartphones to condemn the very system that has enabled them to enjoy the highest standard of living that mankind has attained on this earth.

Capitalism in China has lifted half a BILLION people out of abject poverty. Even the commie government realised that the capitalist system was their salvation and have embraced it wholeheartedly.

I think the majority of people who responded to the survey don't even have a basic understanding of what capitalism is in the first place.
 
simi cock is social democracy?
you mean i have to pay 50% income tax?
then bettter increase more gst hor
haha
 
Social democracy ….see Scandinavian countries.

The Scandinavian countries are as capitalist as they come. It is pretty obvious that most people don't even know what capitalism is. :rolleyes:

https://www.aier.org/article/capitalism-saved-sweden/

Scandinavia: A World Center of Capitalism

Now that I have discussed the differences between capitalism and socialism, let’s consider the question I started out with: is Sweden socialist? I often participate in debates on capitalism vs. socialism, and students often give Sweden as an example of how socialism “works.” Well, yes, Sweden works, that’s true. But it works because it is one of the most capitalist nations in the world! It became capitalist after trying socialism, and reaching the (correct) conclusion that socialism just doesn’t work.

If you think Sweden is socialist, then you know something that just ain’t so. As has been documented repeatedly by popular treatments and more scholarly discussions, any use of the actual measures of economic freedom that constitute capitalism show Sweden is solidly in the camp of fully market-oriented economies. As Andreas Bergh points out in his 2016 book, Sweden and the Revival of the Capitalist Welfare State, it is inconceivable to think of the Sweden of the current decade as being anything other than a capitalist, and in fact libertarian, country.

It is fair to say that Sweden was socialist, at least in terms of temperament and the direction of public policy. In 1975, Sweden’s state owned well over half of the productive resources in the country, and directed prices in much of the rest. It subsidized debt, in part paradoxically by having enormously high tax rates with generous deductions for borrowers. Its attempts at “Keynesian” policy interventions were clumsy, were mistimed, and created disastrous uncertainty in investment returns even in the portions of the economy that were still market-oriented.

The state taxed successful industries heavily, and used the proceeds to subsidize industries that were inefficient, corrupt, and failing. This meant that interest rates on capital were prohibitive, especially when you tack on double-digit inflation.

To protect workers, the state required that wages could not be cut, and also enforced a panoply of restrictions on firing, layoffs, and other means of adjusting hours. Swedish products shot up in price, and the government was forced into a series of devaluations of the krona that made purchases of imported products beyond the reach of much of the middle class.

The electorate took a dim view of all of this. The tax system was a Rube Goldberg mechanism, with a level of complexity and arbitrary favoritism that encouraged distortion of investment into whatever happened to be taxed less, rather than whatever might produce useful products. Gunnar Myrdal, hardly a conservative, famously asked in 1978 whether Swedes “had turned into a people of swindlers.”

Fortunately for its citizens, but unfortunately for those who think Sweden is still socialist, the Swedish government, more or less by universal consensus, turned sharply back toward capitalism beginning in about 1995. It deregulated domestic industry, privatized its education and pension systems, and opened the economy to international trade and competition. The reason it did this is precisely because capitalism, wherever it is practiced seriously in a system with rule of law and protection for property rights, always creates prosperity.
 
Overcapitalism is the problem i think wrt say Boeing. And GE.
On boeing, more money spent on share buy backs than on developing their planes.
 
Capitalism sucks? Not really. Just a bunch of retarded Bernie bros who still think that he can win. :rolleyes:



 
The lefties like to use Sweden as a shining example of socialism. :wink:

 
Globalization is to build rent seeking ecomony. The construction industries are in digital technology period and buidling a 50 story high building take 60% less time to build compare to analog ecomony period....

More tenants are needed... if China open up in year 2000 there will be no ghost towns... 50 million empty apartments.

Now with China 5G and going AI by 2030 no ghost towns avaliable.... full house...
 
The lefties like to use Sweden as a shining example of socialism. :wink:


No matter how many articles and videos you and I post it is not going to change the mindset of characters like @winnipegjets because to them socialism is a religion they have embraced based upon faith rather than logic.

Coverting him would be as hard as dealing with the anti vax brigade and the flat earth society. I respond only to try to prevent others from being sucked into the same cult he belongs to.
 
NEP a race based form of socialism is destructive to malaysian economy. Civil service bloated. And unlike communist china and soviet union, they used affirmative action in education resulting in lowering standards. In russia and china, socialist ideals were not applied in education and employment system and only the best gets appointed. So standards in work and education remain intact.
 
Electoral system in nordic countrues uses proportional representation so even the smallest voices can be heard.
If first past the post system, you end up like UK where minority voted for conservatives but they won by a landslide.
If uk had adopted proportional representation, conservatives would win only 46 % of the seats instead of a majority of over 80 seats currently.
 
Electoral system in nordic countrues uses proportional representation so even the smallest voices can be heard.
If first past the post system, you end up like UK where minority voted for conservatives but they won by a landslide.
If uk had adopted proportional representation, conservatives would win only 46 % of the seats instead of a majority of over 80 seats currently.

New Zealand adopted the proportional representation system and as a result is now governed by a clown who won only 7.2% of the popular vote.

To put it in stark numbers exactly 186,706 individuals decided how a population of more than 4.5 million should be ruled.

The smallest voices aren't just heard they actually decide what policies are to be implemented and what needs to be discarded. In life you need to be very careful what you wish for because it may turn round and bite you in the arse! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Give me the first past the post system anytime. It may not be perfect but at least there's a far better chance that the party who wins a plurality of votes has the most say when it comes to policy.
 
"Majority thinks Capitalism SUCKS" - something is not more true just because the majority believes it is - the majority can and is often … WRONG
 
Back
Top