USA and communism.

USA could do with some communism. Capitalism is killing the country, killing the people. It's nothing but a materialistic degenerate economic system which exploits the working class and promotes usury.

Általa írva Red.Army, 10.01.2021 at 22:56

USA could do with some communism. Capitalism is killing the country, killing the people. It's nothing but a materialistic degenerate economic system which exploits the working class and promotes usury.

I want to implement a downvote function just because of this message.

Általa írva Dave, 10.01.2021 at 23:31

Általa írva Red.Army, 10.01.2021 at 22:56

USA could do with some communism. Capitalism is killing the country, killing the people. It's nothing but a materialistic degenerate economic system which exploits the working class and promotes usury.

I want to implement a downvote function just because of this message.

Please don't, I'd lose a lot of upvotes.

You guys need a mixed economy, taking aspects from both ideologies. Simple as.

Thinking communism or capitalism is the solution to all problems is such a backwards thought and belongs to the post war era.

Általa írva Red.Army, 10.01.2021 at 22:56

USA could do with some communism. Capitalism is killing the country, killing the people. It's nothing but a materialistic degenerate economic system which exploits the working class and promotes usury.

American people have no clue how to make a proper revolution, and have no good ideal to revolve around. After all, Black lives matter protests surely proved that. Instead it just turned into a burndown cities and loot everything event.

What about Tik-tokism but without its antisemitic rhetorics? Might work.

One fascinating thing I noticed about any debate about "socialism" in the context of US politics is that this is a word that can be defined very narrowly or very expansively depending on whatever best suits the speaker's arguments.

When the motion of debate is "should we have socialism," self-described capitalists use the narrow definition of this word, to mean the distinct set of Soviet- or PRC-aligned communist dictatorships that existed in the Cold War, and of course we shouldn't have socialism, because of course we don't want famines, or political purges, or concentration camps, or what have you that characterise these historical communist dictatorships. From that perspective, why would anyone support socialism? What kind of monster would do that?

When the motion of debate switches to "what policies characterise socialism," however, anti-socialists suddenly do a 180-degree turn and define socialism extremely broadly, to mean basically any kind of intensive state intervention in the economy. Of course Western Europe is chock full of socialist states, and since we have already established that socialism is a thing that the United States shouldn't have, it follows that the United States should avoid implementing such radical socialist policies like universal healthcare that Europeans have.

And of course self-described communists do much the same thing, only the other way around.

So instead of trying to write a substantive argument on a foundation that won't support one, I will instead ask the original poster this. When you say that the United States should have "some communism", what, exactly, is meant by "some communism"? What policies does this entail and what social changes does it imply?

Without a clear and agreed-upon definition there can be no intellectually honest discussion.

Általa írva International, 17.01.2021 at 07:09

One fascinating thing I noticed about any debate about "socialism" in the context of US politics is that this is a word that can be defined very narrowly or very expansively depending on whatever best suits the speaker's arguments.

When the motion of debate is "should we have socialism," self-described capitalists use the narrow definition of this word, to mean the distinct set of Soviet- or PRC-aligned communist dictatorships that existed in the Cold War, and of course we shouldn't have socialism, because of course we don't want famines, or political purges, or concentration camps, or what have you that characterise these historical communist dictatorships. From that perspective, why would anyone support socialism? What kind of monster would do that?

When the motion of debate switches to "what policies characterise socialism," however, anti-socialists suddenly do a 180-degree turn and define socialism extremely broadly, to mean basically any kind of intensive state intervention in the economy. Of course Western Europe is chock full of socialist states, and since we have already established that socialism is a thing that the United States shouldn't have, it follows that the United States should avoid implementing such radical socialist policies like universal healthcare that Europeans have.

And of course self-described communists do much the same thing, only the other way around.

So instead of trying to write a substantive argument on a foundation that won't support one, I will instead ask the original poster this. When you say that the United States should have "some communism", what, exactly, is meant by "some communism"? What policies does this entail and what social changes does it imply?

Without a clear and agreed-upon definition there can be no intellectually honest discussion.

What about Chinese Communism? One party state with market economy? Since oligarchs can hijack democracies, and votes doesn't matter anymore, we could simply copy Chinese politics: they are executing their corrupted individuals while supporting infrastructure, jobs, and citizen wellbeing.

You can't deny that market-based economies are the most efficient long-term and that authoritarianism is more efficient than democracy - where goals change every 4-5 years after elections, and authoritarian goals are there as long the regime exist.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

What about Chinese Communism? One party state with market economy? Since oligarchs can hijack democracies, and votes doesn't matter anymore, we could simply copy Chinese politics: they are executing their corrupted individuals while supporting infrastructure, jobs, and citizen wellbeing.

...and also putting an ethnic minority into concentration camps, suppressing democratic reform in Hong Kong, and making people that the Party doesn't like disappear. No thanks.

If China is our model for what a communist society looks like, then I will confidently assert myself as an anti-communist.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

You can't deny [...] that authoritarianism is more efficient than democracy - where goals change every 4-5 years after elections, and authoritarian goals are there as long the regime exist.

The government having a constant long-term goal is only a good thing if you happen to agree with said goal. It's more important that the government be kept in check by a powerful citizenry than it is that the government be able to carry out its agenda without challenge. Politicians tend to be self-interested, and can only be trusted to work in the people's interest only insofar as they need the people's approval to stay in power.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

Általa írva International, 17.01.2021 at 07:09

One fascinating thing I noticed about any debate about "socialism" in the context of US politics is that this is a word that can be defined very narrowly or very expansively depending on whatever best suits the speaker's arguments.

When the motion of debate is "should we have socialism," self-described capitalists use the narrow definition of this word, to mean the distinct set of Soviet- or PRC-aligned communist dictatorships that existed in the Cold War, and of course we shouldn't have socialism, because of course we don't want famines, or political purges, or concentration camps, or what have you that characterise these historical communist dictatorships. From that perspective, why would anyone support socialism? What kind of monster would do that?

When the motion of debate switches to "what policies characterise socialism," however, anti-socialists suddenly do a 180-degree turn and define socialism extremely broadly, to mean basically any kind of intensive state intervention in the economy. Of course Western Europe is chock full of socialist states, and since we have already established that socialism is a thing that the United States shouldn't have, it follows that the United States should avoid implementing such radical socialist policies like universal healthcare that Europeans have.

And of course self-described communists do much the same thing, only the other way around.

So instead of trying to write a substantive argument on a foundation that won't support one, I will instead ask the original poster this. When you say that the United States should have "some communism", what, exactly, is meant by "some communism"? What policies does this entail and what social changes does it imply?

Without a clear and agreed-upon definition there can be no intellectually honest discussion.

What about Chinese Communism? One party state with market economy? Since oligarchs can hijack democracies, and votes doesn't matter anymore, we could simply copy Chinese politics: they are executing their corrupted individuals while supporting infrastructure, jobs, and citizen wellbeing.

You can't deny that market-based economies are the most efficient long-term and that authoritarianism is more efficient than democracy - where goals change every 4-5 years after elections, and authoritarian goals are there as long the regime exist.

Do you realize what made the great divergence happen? One of the main factors providing the way to the revolution is the absence of fucking absolutism.
It isnt just a coincidence that this revolution started in England out of all places. The great societies of Islam and China, while being advanced where overrided in less than a century.
Unless China becomes a free society and lets loose the authoritarian government it wont ever reach its full potential nor will it ever do what the free minds of the West did.

Általa írva Red.Army, 10.01.2021 at 22:56

USA could do with some communism.

Communism couldn't survive neither on fucking Balkans, where non ideology can help us, and you expect USA, a country which basically touched it's peak on capitalism, to live with it

I don't know if you troll or not, but people nowadays, in 21st century, have to finally level up in their brains and realize that communism is just one failed utopia which never survived in practice. That's the only fact that matters, all other are fallacies and unattianable wishes, from this or that reason.

Általa írva International, 21.01.2021 at 14:11

...and also putting an ethnic minority into concentration camps, suppressing democratic reform in Hong Kong, and making people that the Party doesn't like disappear. No thanks.

If China is our model for what a communist society looks like, then I will confidently assert myself as an anti-communist.

Well for starter, we don't know that, China is huge and your spies can't map the whole territory and report back to you. All the accusations about con. camps are coming from the West, which is openly hostile to China.

Second thing is, they are independent country and have right to do whatever they want inside their border, i am not westerner so i can't complain about something not affecting me. I, as other people, have problem with invasions and foreign aggressions, which China historically rarely did it.

Third point is, i said one party system, not communist society, you mixed these things. One party system can be right-wing, or theocratic, not only communist, so your premise is wrong in its foundations. I'll always take a good one party system that works for average Joe over democracy which allows GMO, pardons convicts and invade nations all over the planet - and i'll take peaceful democracy over aggressive one party state. I don't why you people are so dogmatic about democracy, even blind to people suffering and dying beneath it.



(no need to talk about how people willfully avoid arabia and criticize china despite arabian oppression being known so long like god's list)

Általa írva International, 21.01.2021 at 14:11

The government having a constant long-term goal is only a good thing if you happen to agree with said goal. It's more important that the government be kept in check by a powerful citizenry than it is that the government be able to carry out its agenda without challenge. Politicians tend to be self-interested, and can only be trusted to work in the people's interest only insofar as they need the people's approval to stay in power.

Well, US government created one of the best systems in the world, which culminated in great society in the 50s (not LBJ confused), but then stagnated in 1971 and abandoned at the end of Cold War, now americans live on foodstamps and without healthcare, crime is rampant, daily protests and so on.
In the other side of the world, you have China which elevated 500 million people out of poverty and 20 million more each year, using capitalist method of the 20th century. If that's communism, i'll take it.

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 22.01.2021 at 08:12

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

Általa írva International, 17.01.2021 at 07:09

One fascinating thing I noticed about any debate about "socialism" in the context of US politics is that this is a word that can be defined very narrowly or very expansively depending on whatever best suits the speaker's arguments.

When the motion of debate is "should we have socialism," self-described capitalists use the narrow definition of this word, to mean the distinct set of Soviet- or PRC-aligned communist dictatorships that existed in the Cold War, and of course we shouldn't have socialism, because of course we don't want famines, or political purges, or concentration camps, or what have you that characterise these historical communist dictatorships. From that perspective, why would anyone support socialism? What kind of monster would do that?

When the motion of debate switches to "what policies characterise socialism," however, anti-socialists suddenly do a 180-degree turn and define socialism extremely broadly, to mean basically any kind of intensive state intervention in the economy. Of course Western Europe is chock full of socialist states, and since we have already established that socialism is a thing that the United States shouldn't have, it follows that the United States should avoid implementing such radical socialist policies like universal healthcare that Europeans have.

And of course self-described communists do much the same thing, only the other way around.

So instead of trying to write a substantive argument on a foundation that won't support one, I will instead ask the original poster this. When you say that the United States should have "some communism", what, exactly, is meant by "some communism"? What policies does this entail and what social changes does it imply?

Without a clear and agreed-upon definition there can be no intellectually honest discussion.

What about Chinese Communism? One party state with market economy? Since oligarchs can hijack democracies, and votes doesn't matter anymore, we could simply copy Chinese politics: they are executing their corrupted individuals while supporting infrastructure, jobs, and citizen wellbeing.

You can't deny that market-based economies are the most efficient long-term and that authoritarianism is more efficient than democracy - where goals change every 4-5 years after elections, and authoritarian goals are there as long the regime exist.

Do you realize what made the great divergence happen? One of the main factors providing the way to the revolution is the absence of fucking absolutism.
It isnt just a coincidence that this revolution started in England out of all places. The great societies of Islam and China, while being advanced where overrided in less than a century.
Unless China becomes a free society and lets loose the authoritarian government it wont ever reach its full potential nor will it ever do what the free minds of the West did.

ok bud.. don't even go there. If China didn't have a strict government the country would be a god damn disaster. I DOUBT the country would stay in one piece, and it wouldn't the superpower that it is now. A nice example of your imaginary "perfect democracy china" would be hong kong, the place where riots devasted its economy. Even in homeland America, remember the BLM Protests and the Insurrection at the Capitol? I do too..

China is a very prosperous country at the moment, and its currently leading the world in trade and technology, very much on its way to being the Global Superpower, which even Americans are scared of. After all, the tariffs say a lot about it.

Általa írva Fatcheek, 25.01.2021 at 14:37

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 22.01.2021 at 08:12

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

Általa írva International, 17.01.2021 at 07:09

One fascinating thing I noticed about any debate about "socialism" in the context of US politics is that this is a word that can be defined very narrowly or very expansively depending on whatever best suits the speaker's arguments.

When the motion of debate is "should we have socialism," self-described capitalists use the narrow definition of this word, to mean the distinct set of Soviet- or PRC-aligned communist dictatorships that existed in the Cold War, and of course we shouldn't have socialism, because of course we don't want famines, or political purges, or concentration camps, or what have you that characterise these historical communist dictatorships. From that perspective, why would anyone support socialism? What kind of monster would do that?

When the motion of debate switches to "what policies characterise socialism," however, anti-socialists suddenly do a 180-degree turn and define socialism extremely broadly, to mean basically any kind of intensive state intervention in the economy. Of course Western Europe is chock full of socialist states, and since we have already established that socialism is a thing that the United States shouldn't have, it follows that the United States should avoid implementing such radical socialist policies like universal healthcare that Europeans have.

And of course self-described communists do much the same thing, only the other way around.

So instead of trying to write a substantive argument on a foundation that won't support one, I will instead ask the original poster this. When you say that the United States should have "some communism", what, exactly, is meant by "some communism"? What policies does this entail and what social changes does it imply?

Without a clear and agreed-upon definition there can be no intellectually honest discussion.

What about Chinese Communism? One party state with market economy? Since oligarchs can hijack democracies, and votes doesn't matter anymore, we could simply copy Chinese politics: they are executing their corrupted individuals while supporting infrastructure, jobs, and citizen wellbeing.

You can't deny that market-based economies are the most efficient long-term and that authoritarianism is more efficient than democracy - where goals change every 4-5 years after elections, and authoritarian goals are there as long the regime exist.

Do you realize what made the great divergence happen? One of the main factors providing the way to the revolution is the absence of fucking absolutism.
It isnt just a coincidence that this revolution started in England out of all places. The great societies of Islam and China, while being advanced where overrided in less than a century.
Unless China becomes a free society and lets loose the authoritarian government it wont ever reach its full potential nor will it ever do what the free minds of the West did.

ok bud.. don't even go there. If China didn't have a strict government the country would be a god damn disaster. I DOUBT the country would stay in one piece, and it wouldn't the superpower that it is now. A nice example of your imaginary "perfect democracy china" would be hong kong, the place where riots devasted its economy. Even in homeland America, remember the BLM Protests and the Insurrection at the Capitol? I do too..

China is a very prosperous country at the moment, and its currently leading the world in trade and technology, very much on its way to being the Global Superpower, which even Americans are scared of. After all, the tariffs say a lot about it.

Explain to me how absolutism does not hold back innovation.
Explain why industrial revolution happened in England and not for example in glorieus china or glorieus islamic world.
Yes hong kong was close to being a democracy, if you had any knowledge of why they went protesting heavily, its because they are losing their democracy. Stop being so ignorant.
Demonstration and protest is good for a country to become better. Otherwise only a small elite will keep deciding what is good for a country.

The chinese started from rock bottom, for them the only way is up. And they wont be close to Western wealth size in nearly 50 years from now.
The chinese arent prosperous, they are just having surplusses of money because of their export growth etc. The chinese way was to copy the west and make profits out of it. Keep large western companies out of china. Google, FB, even keeping a limit to hollywood films.

When a country has 1.3 billion people and they will not experience large scale war then obviously they will accelerate and become richer. However their system lacks of becoming innovative. And that will always be a totalitarian problem.

Lets put it this way:
When the book print got invented and countries wanted to accelerate the production of it. What did the absolutist countries such as the Ottoman empire do. They banned book print, why? because this new technology will be a danger to their power control of the country.
The same thing applies to any country that has a totalitarian regime. When an innovative product comes as long, which threatens the elite power, they will ban it. Hence, there will be loss of economic opportunity because of it.

China isnt leading in trade nor technology. Nor is it close to being a superpower. It is getting closer by year, but as of 2021, they dont pose a threat yet to USA. The exact moment that changes, is the moment they will invade and annex Taiwan and USA wont do anything about it. I dont see that happening in the coming decades.

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Explain to me how absolutism does not hold back innovation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism

Europe did, China will the same.

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Explain why industrial revolution happened in England and not for example in glorieus china or glorieus islamic world.

Because different mentality, different economic system, race for profit, race for advantage. China is way older than England, and Islamic World is way different, they value culture and tradition more than economicy.

This is crucial thing westerners dont understand - some nations will not sell identity for money. They will live in a hut eating rice and no iphone and internet will force them to change their way of life. If they start to innovate tech, it will be at their pace, like Japan.

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Yes hong kong was close to being a democracy, if you had any knowledge of why they went protesting heavily, its because they are losing their democracy. Stop being so ignorant.
Demonstration and protest is good for a country to become better. Otherwise only a small elite will keep deciding what is good for a country.

By that logic, USA must been 100x better since Trump won in 2016, there have been 15,000 protests.

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

The chinese started from rock bottom, for them the only way is up. And they wont be close to Western wealth size in nearly 50 years from now.

Because wealth differs from region to region. China will never have money like USA and USA will never have culture like China.

One inflation and dollar is gone. Chinese culture exists for 4000 years.

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

The chinese arent prosperous, they are just having surplusses of money because of their export growth etc. The chinese way was to copy the west and make profits out of it. Keep large western companies out of china. Google, FB, even keeping a limit to hollywood films.

When a country has 1.3 billion people and they will not experience large scale war then obviously they will accelerate and become richer. However their system lacks of becoming innovative. And that will always be a totalitarian problem.

Totalitarianism < Market economy, choose one.

Saying Chinese are not innovative is like saying Pope is good babysitter.

China has been the largest economy for 25 century and missed only 2; 19th and 20th. Fireworks, gunpowder, compass, great wall half of the human innovation comes from China, and half the philosophy(confucious, lao zi, cao cao, sun tsu (cultural counterpart))

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Lets put it this way:
When the book print got invented and countries wanted to accelerate the production of it. What did the absolutist countries such as the Ottoman empire do. They banned book print, why? because this new technology will be a danger to their power control of the country.
The same thing applies to any country that has a totalitarian regime. When an innovative product comes as long, which threatens the elite power, they will ban it. Hence, there will be loss of economic opportunity because of it.

You mean like Parler and 5g? Hm, seems China is more open than USA now.

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

China isnt leading in trade nor technology. Nor is it close to being a superpower. It is getting closer by year, but as of 2021, they dont pose a threat yet to USA. The exact moment that changes, is the moment they will invade and annex Taiwan and USA wont do anything about it. I dont see that happening in the coming decades.

China can never be a threat to USA because theres a f*cking ocean between them plus Japan. China will be a threat when USA declares so, not vice-versa. It is US carriers in chinese waters, not Chinese carriers in LA.

China annexing Taiwan? Seems reasonable, if history and human psychology teach us anything is that weak nations tend to absorb their lost regions when they get stronger.

I don't see why would white american 10,000km away worry about chinese-chinese relations.

Általa írva Fatcheek, 25.01.2021 at 14:37

China is a very prosperous country at the moment, and its currently leading the world in trade and technology, very much on its way to being the Global Superpower, which even Americans are scared of. After all, the tariffs say a lot about it.

A strong nation is not necessarily a good thing.

It doesn't really matter to me how influential my country is on the international stage. What matters to me is the quality of life I can enjoy from living in my country of citizenship. It certainly helps if my country is an innovative hotspot or a global great power, because these things means it's easier for me personally to grow wealthier, but they are not good things in and of themselves.

And the quality of life in China is... well, I wouldn't want to live that way. I like my freedom of thought and expression too much.

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Általa írva Fatcheek, 25.01.2021 at 14:37

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 22.01.2021 at 08:12

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

Általa írva International, 17.01.2021 at 07:09

One fascinating thing I noticed about any debate about "socialism" in the context of US politics is that this is a word that can be defined very narrowly or very expansively depending on whatever best suits the speaker's arguments.

When the motion of debate is "should we have socialism," self-described capitalists use the narrow definition of this word, to mean the distinct set of Soviet- or PRC-aligned communist dictatorships that existed in the Cold War, and of course we shouldn't have socialism, because of course we don't want famines, or political purges, or concentration camps, or what have you that characterise these historical communist dictatorships. From that perspective, why would anyone support socialism? What kind of monster would do that?

When the motion of debate switches to "what policies characterise socialism," however, anti-socialists suddenly do a 180-degree turn and define socialism extremely broadly, to mean basically any kind of intensive state intervention in the economy. Of course Western Europe is chock full of socialist states, and since we have already established that socialism is a thing that the United States shouldn't have, it follows that the United States should avoid implementing such radical socialist policies like universal healthcare that Europeans have.

And of course self-described communists do much the same thing, only the other way around.

So instead of trying to write a substantive argument on a foundation that won't support one, I will instead ask the original poster this. When you say that the United States should have "some communism", what, exactly, is meant by "some communism"? What policies does this entail and what social changes does it imply?

Without a clear and agreed-upon definition there can be no intellectually honest discussion.

What about Chinese Communism? One party state with market economy? Since oligarchs can hijack democracies, and votes doesn't matter anymore, we could simply copy Chinese politics: they are executing their corrupted individuals while supporting infrastructure, jobs, and citizen wellbeing.

You can't deny that market-based economies are the most efficient long-term and that authoritarianism is more efficient than democracy - where goals change every 4-5 years after elections, and authoritarian goals are there as long the regime exist.

Do you realize what made the great divergence happen? One of the main factors providing the way to the revolution is the absence of fucking absolutism.
It isnt just a coincidence that this revolution started in England out of all places. The great societies of Islam and China, while being advanced where overrided in less than a century.
Unless China becomes a free society and lets loose the authoritarian government it wont ever reach its full potential nor will it ever do what the free minds of the West did.

ok bud.. don't even go there. If China didn't have a strict government the country would be a god damn disaster. I DOUBT the country would stay in one piece, and it wouldn't the superpower that it is now. A nice example of your imaginary "perfect democracy china" would be hong kong, the place where riots devasted its economy. Even in homeland America, remember the BLM Protests and the Insurrection at the Capitol? I do too..

China is a very prosperous country at the moment, and its currently leading the world in trade and technology, very much on its way to being the Global Superpower, which even Americans are scared of. After all, the tariffs say a lot about it.

Explain to me how absolutism does not hold back innovation.
Explain why industrial revolution happened in England and not for example in glorieus china or glorieus islamic world.
Yes hong kong was close to being a democracy, if you had any knowledge of why they went protesting heavily, its because they are losing their democracy. Stop being so ignorant.
Demonstration and protest is good for a country to become better. Otherwise only a small elite will keep deciding what is good for a country.

The chinese started from rock bottom, for them the only way is up. And they wont be close to Western wealth size in nearly 50 years from now.
The chinese arent prosperous, they are just having surplusses of money because of their export growth etc. The chinese way was to copy the west and make profits out of it. Keep large western companies out of china. Google, FB, even keeping a limit to hollywood films.

When a country has 1.3 billion people and they will not experience large scale war then obviously they will accelerate and become richer. However their system lacks of becoming innovative. And that will always be a totalitarian problem.

Lets put it this way:
When the book print got invented and countries wanted to accelerate the production of it. What did the absolutist countries such as the Ottoman empire do. They banned book print, why? because this new technology will be a danger to their power control of the country.
The same thing applies to any country that has a totalitarian regime. When an innovative product comes as long, which threatens the elite power, they will ban it. Hence, there will be loss of economic opportunity because of it.

China isnt leading in trade nor technology. Nor is it close to being a superpower. It is getting closer by year, but as of 2021, they dont pose a threat yet to USA. The exact moment that changes, is the moment they will invade and annex Taiwan and USA wont do anything about it. I dont see that happening in the coming decades.

I don't see how you believe that democracy is the one that causes all the innovation. The Soviet Union was the firsts one to send a human into space and had a very successful Space Program and had established of networks of water, electricity, heating, and transport almost free.
You keep using England as an example, but do you not realize England was not a democracy before 1918? and when they were a democracy, women couldn't vote for some time. That's a pretty huge portion of the population not being able to vote...

If protests are good for the government, I wonder why Hong Kong is a piece of garbage after the protests. I wonder why the Insurrection at the capitol didn't make the government better... and btw, it's not like you can't criticize the government, or do demonstrations for new policies in China, Legal protests exist too. Those things happen all the time. Chinese Criticism Network is much more effective than the western one and doesn't lead to shit like Insurrections, attempting to overthrow the government like in the US, and burning down entire sections of cities. Not even gonna write much on the book print thing, but just saying, 5G..

Your being in-denial when you claiming China is nowhere near a superpower. The Number of Mega Projects that China has planned is remarkable, and China holds lots of control over the world stage. and gets more powerful by the day. Meanwhile, the US has been isolating itself from World Issues.

US Debt Bubble explodes one day btw, Thats is the death of the United States of America.

Általa írva International, 26.01.2021 at 07:49

Általa írva Fatcheek, 25.01.2021 at 14:37

China is a very prosperous country at the moment, and its currently leading the world in trade and technology, very much on its way to being the Global Superpower, which even Americans are scared of. After all, the tariffs say a lot about it.

A strong nation is not necessarily a good thing.

It doesn't really matter to me how influential my country is on the international stage. What matters to me is the quality of life I can enjoy from living in my country of citizenship. It certainly helps if my country is an innovative hotspot or a global great power, because these things means it's easier for me personally to grow wealthier, but they are not good things in and of themselves.

And the quality of life in China is... well, I wouldn't want to live that way. I like my freedom of thought and expression too much.

China is not a bad country to live in. In fact, Chinese Cities are much safer to live in then places like New York or San Francisco. And it's not like Chinese citizens don't enjoy a good life, In fact, their lifestyle is pretty well. You can criticize the government but just no USA Style Protesting.

Idézet:

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 26.01.2021 at 01:42

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

The question was if absolutism holds back innovation. So i dont know what ur on about enlighted absolutism. It is really simple. Before the great divergence and especially before the religious wars, Europe wasnt technologically neither economically farther than China nor Islamic world. Europe was lacking way behind.

So you attribute mentality, economic policy and a way of life to the great divergence. Do you know what absolutist systems are?
What makes England have a less absolutist system than for example China or Ottoman empire. Do they not have freeer economic policies, do they not have an open mentality. Read again the definition of innovation.

USA because of Trump 100x better because they had 15000 protest?
Are you just dumb or trolling now. If you want to have a real discussion then stop trolling.
You protest because you think something is bad and you want to change something. In this regarding change comes after such protests. When you protest against Trump or trumps policies, the freedom and making the country better doesnt come from Trump, it comes because of him....

What has culture to do with anything of this?
Again the question is if absolutism holds back innovation, and why the great divergence started in England.
Your culture changes over time if you havent noticed. Death penalty, burning witches was quite normal in England, now its not. Traditions change, it just takes time, so dont attribute culture this this...
Also i pointed out they started from rock bottom. Do you agree with this or not? Stop bringing up useless shit.

Yes China has been at the top of the world for nearly all centuries in written human history.
Then again, why did they not experience the great divergence, and did the West do?
Tell me why Japan became so rich so fast, when they abolished absolutism, the same for the other Asian Tigers.
Sure some absolutist countries can become very rich very fast, like the oil rich countries or Venezuela in the 70s, but you know this isnt real wealth. Its temporary wealth. You as a Russian should know what it means when your country leans on gas and oil exports. Russia and slump/ down oil prices > economic depression.

I didnt say chinese arent innovative, they are very innovative people. I said absolutism holds back innovation. Stop putting words into another. So where is your argument for absolutism?

5g, parler?
Was that my example? Why dont you go into the example i gave? Seems to me you have no arguments and you dont take any stance. Youre just blank.
To my understanding, parler is american.
And why would you attribute 5g to totalitarian way of China?
Its Korea who introduced 5G as the first country.
Oh and btw, we have the internet because of, you guessed it , the americans.

First you say China can never be threat because of Ocean, then you say it will be a threat when usa says so. Make up your mind.
China can always become a threat to US dominance, thats what i argued there.
For example. There is a civil war in Russia. Can Chinese proxies win against US proxies in that case. If china can challenge US dominance in that way then they pose a threat.
An ocean doesnt stop that. As if USSR never posed a threat to US dominance.

Why America would worry about Chinese- chinese relations? (taiwan- china)
So should Germany invade Kalinigrad and make it German again?
Do Taiwanese people have a say what happens to they country?
USA worries because they are as you know the world power. Their backyard is nowadays every continent. And because of their power, every country will ask them for help. Its not as if Taiwanese government is extremely against USA, if that were the case then obviously USA would rethink its taiwanese policy.

Read about the great divergence. A good book would be guns, steel, germs from jared diamond or China, europe and making the modern world from Kenneth pomeranz.

Általa írva Fatcheek, 26.01.2021 at 09:55

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Általa írva Fatcheek, 25.01.2021 at 14:37

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 22.01.2021 at 08:12

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

Általa írva International, 17.01.2021 at 07:09

I don't see how you believe that democracy is the one that causes all the innovation. The Soviet Union was the firsts one to send a human into space and had a very successful Space Program and had established of networks of water, electricity, heating, and transport almost free.
You keep using England as an example, but do you not realize England was not a democracy before 1918? and when they were a democracy, women couldn't vote for some time. That's a pretty huge portion of the population not being able to vote...

If protests are good for the government, I wonder why Hong Kong is a piece of garbage after the protests. I wonder why the Insurrection at the capitol didn't make the government better... and btw, it's not like you can't criticize the government, or do demonstrations for new policies in China, Legal protests exist too. Those things happen all the time. Chinese Criticism Network is much more effective than the western one and doesn't lead to shit like Insurrections, attempting to overthrow the government like in the US, and burning down entire sections of cities. Not even gonna write much on the book print thing, but just saying, 5G..

Your being in-denial when you claiming China is nowhere near a superpower. The Number of Mega Projects that China has planned is remarkable, and China holds lots of control over the world stage. and gets more powerful by the day. Meanwhile, the US has been isolating itself from World Issues.

US Debt Bubble explodes one day btw, Thats is the death of the United States of America.

Ýes the USSR send the first human to space. Yes they had networks of water, electricity, heating and yes free transportation.
Do you realize how much they spent on human space exploration?

It is no wonder Elon musk is situated in you know....USA.
Space exploration costs a lot of money. Main reason the US stopped going into space again.
What i mean by absolutism holds back innovation. ( i thought this is common sense lol) is for example:
Russia had a totalitarian state when they were USSR. Communist as well.
What if the revolution in 1917 did not make them communist, but rather democratic and a bit like western europe. Would you not think that Russia would have had many more technological inventions.
In history, people flee from totalitarian systems and go to places were they are welcomed. In todays world, the open places are democratic. Why that matters? Smart people always flee the country at first. This is called brain drain. Why do you think they put up the Berlin wall? Was it not because of this brain drain? Surely east germany was rich af unlike the west

Why i bring up England? Where did the great divergence start and when.. boy this is high school level shit.
In England, absolutism vanished in 1688... the year of the Glorious Revolution. Im not talking about democracy and if and when women could vote.
For example, in Russia the Tsars ruled until 1905 or well into the first world war.

Do i really have to explain why protesting for change is a good thing? Sure, looting is bad, sure killing is bad. But thats not protesting.
If your life was in a house with 4 people. 1 person is the absolutist ruler and decides everything. You want something to change, how will you achieve this? protest and demand change.
Hong Kong is a special case , because it is part of China. But what if Hong kong people want to be independent? What if they are extremely against the totalitarian rule in China. Should or shouldnt they protest? I mean cmon, use your common sense.

Yes China is becoming stronger by the year. They have 1.3 billion people, what did you expect? But neither in soft nor hard power they are a challenge yet to USA. USA hightlight was in 1991 and since then its declining, but cmon we dont live in a multipolar world. There is only 1 superpower, which is USA and China is nowhere close it it. They are getting close to USA dominance, but it the USA still has its dominance until like 2050. I even expect China to get a revolution by then and a civil war which kills their economy before 2050.

USA debt is fine... if you had knowledge of economics you'd realize debt in this financial world is good, as long as you have a good economy and or in USA case, as long as you hold the dominant power.
Greece has in the eurocrises had/has huge debts. This isnt normally a problem as long as you have a good economy which translates into confidence of the financial markets in your country > which then translates into lower interests for your payment of debt. https://prnt.sc/xo7ra1
USA debt is just normal as other countries.
In the case of US, it actually benefits them to have more debt. Its weird but thats how economics work.
Simple explanation:
USA has good rating > pays 0.5% interest for its debts
Greece has bad rating > pays 15% interest for its debts.
A smart guy would take a loan of 0.5% interest and lend it to the guy who pays 15% interest.
Ofcourse there is much to it , but this is simplified.

USA has the luck of being geographically positioned well, and having all the resources it needs. It is literally the only country who can isolate itself from the world and stay sufficient. China on the other hand, does not have the necessary resources....

Általa írva Fatcheek, 26.01.2021 at 09:58

Általa írva International, 26.01.2021 at 07:49

Általa írva Fatcheek, 25.01.2021 at 14:37

China is a very prosperous country at the moment, and its currently leading the world in trade and technology, very much on its way to being the Global Superpower, which even Americans are scared of. After all, the tariffs say a lot about it.

A strong nation is not necessarily a good thing.

It doesn't really matter to me how influential my country is on the international stage. What matters to me is the quality of life I can enjoy from living in my country of citizenship. It certainly helps if my country is an innovative hotspot or a global great power, because these things means it's easier for me personally to grow wealthier, but they are not good things in and of themselves.

And the quality of life in China is... well, I wouldn't want to live that way. I like my freedom of thought and expression too much.

China is not a bad country to live in. In fact, Chinese Cities are much safer to live in then places like New York or San Francisco. And it's not like Chinese citizens don't enjoy a good life, In fact, their lifestyle is pretty well. You can criticize the government but just no USA Style Protesting.

Their parents experienced poverty. Huge poverty.They experienced the great famine. What stories do you think they will tell their kids at the dinner table?
When i met chinese people, and ask them about the communist rule, all of them say the exact same thing.
"We know communism and the one party system is bad. But as long as our live keeps getting better we wont complain.".

This is mainly due to the huge poverty history of China.
I'd rather live in a country where you can ridicule the president (Trump)
than live in a country where you go to jail if you ridicule the president (Xi xinping)

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 26.01.2021 at 14:59

The question was if absolutism holds back innovation. So i dont know what ur on about enlighted absolutism. It is really simple. Before the great divergence and especially before the religious wars, Europe wasnt technologically neither economically farther than China nor Islamic world. Europe was lacking way behind.

So you attribute mentality, economic policy and a way of life to the great divergence. Do you know what absolutist systems are?
What makes England have a less absolutist system than for example China or Ottoman empire. Do they not have freeer economic policies, do they not have an open mentality. Read again the definition of innovation.

USA because of Trump 100x better because they had 15000 protest?
Are you just dumb or trolling now. If you want to have a real discussion then stop trolling.
You protest because you think something is bad and you want to change something. In this regarding change comes after such protests. When you protest against Trump or trumps policies, the freedom and making the country better doesnt come from Trump, it comes because of him....

What has culture to do with anything of this?
Again the question is if absolutism holds back innovation, and why the great divergence started in England.
Your culture changes over time if you havent noticed. Death penalty, burning witches was quite normal in England, now its not. Traditions change, it just takes time, so dont attribute culture this this...
Also i pointed out they started from rock bottom. Do you agree with this or not? Stop bringing up useless shit.

Yes China has been at the top of the world for nearly all centuries in written human history.
Then again, why did they not experience the great divergence, and did the West do?
Tell me why Japan became so rich so fast, when they abolished absolutism, the same for the other Asian Tigers.
Sure some absolutist countries can become very rich very fast, like the oil rich countries or Venezuela in the 70s, but you know this isnt real wealth. Its temporary wealth. You as a Russian should know what it means when your country leans on gas and oil exports. Russia and slump/ down oil prices > economic depression.

I didnt say chinese arent innovative, they are very innovative people. I said absolutism holds back innovation. Stop putting words into another. So where is your argument for absolutism?

5g, parler?
Was that my example? Why dont you go into the example i gave? Seems to me you have no arguments and you dont take any stance. Youre just blank.
To my understanding, parler is american.
And why would you attribute 5g to totalitarian way of China?
Its Korea who introduced 5G as the first country.
Oh and btw, we have the internet because of, you guessed it , the americans.

First you say China can never be threat because of Ocean, then you say it will be a threat when usa says so. Make up your mind.
China can always become a threat to US dominance, thats what i argued there.
For example. There is a civil war in Russia. Can Chinese proxies win against US proxies in that case. If china can challenge US dominance in that way then they pose a threat.
An ocean doesnt stop that. As if USSR never posed a threat to US dominance.

Why America would worry about Chinese- chinese relations? (taiwan- china)
So should Germany invade Kalinigrad and make it German again?
Do Taiwanese people have a say what happens to they country?
USA worries because they are as you know the world power. Their backyard is nowadays every continent. And because of their power, every country will ask them for help. Its not as if Taiwanese government is extremely against USA, if that were the case then obviously USA would rethink its taiwanese policy.

Read about the great divergence. A good book would be guns, steel, germs from jared diamond or China, europe and making the modern world from Kenneth pomeranz.

1. East asian tigers were dictatorships when their economies boomed(Singap, ROK)... its common knowledge... plus they had access to the largest market in the world - USA, like Japan. For decades.
So much about your freedom and fair competition in the economy. Just another proof that absolutism with market economy is more effiicient than democracy or communism.

2. People flee poverty, not lack of freedom. They couldn't care less about politics as long they have money. Take away money from americans and west europeans and watch the bloodbath. They wont give a dime about whos white, black, conservative, immigrant or atheist.
They teach you narrative how your vote matters and you are great democracy, while they(oligarchs) maintain the hierarchy with money, liberty. We don't live the Orwellian distopia, but Brave new world.

3. There is no definite answer for Great Divergence, but in layman term, it is mostly due to european colonialist mercantilism (greed), you guessed it - oligarchs. Common european was farming and living peacefully for centuries until oligarchs recruit him to fight for some catholic leagues, habsburgs, ancien regimes, coalitions. The oligarchs made 'companies' to get richer, east indian company, dutch indonesian company whatnot, facilitating trade and finance, followed by brutal wars to genocide local populations to extract resources from their native land. Abundance of new resources forced people to find a way to 'mold' it into a product and sell it for profit(tech inov). A noble endevour for a commoner, who can, now, make a life easier for all of us, but the end goal is the same - money for the oligarch.

4. Russian? I am no russian you noob, just another proof you see Russians anywhere people disagree with your worldview. Thats racism actually.
I said 100 times and i will say again... i am Buryat. there are f*cking 200 nations in Russia (hence the federation, not republic..), not everyone is Russian... Russians comprised 50% of USSR population, 70% of RF today. They were never the dominant group and even crosses have crescent moon on them because literally half the population of russia were muslims for its existence. Of course this goes against your Russia bad narrative.
And i am not even from Russia, my mother emigrated due to bad living standard when USSR collapsed, which is interesting, democratic Russia is losing 1 million people a year (less babies, more dead, not emigration) while communist Russia was adding 2.5 million each year, doubling the population or its 70 years of existance (from 140m to 290m) and that after surviving WW2. So if you want russians to stop pointing out how communism was better, and you want your beloved democracy in Russia, you should do more than bringing tanks to baltic and repeating like a parror 'bad russia'.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 27.01.2021 at 04:33

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 26.01.2021 at 14:59

The question was if absolutism holds back innovation. So i dont know what ur on about enlighted absolutism. It is really simple. Before the great divergence and especially before the religious wars, Europe wasnt technologically neither economically farther than China nor Islamic world. Europe was lacking way behind.

So you attribute mentality, economic policy and a way of life to the great divergence. Do you know what absolutist systems are?
What makes England have a less absolutist system than for example China or Ottoman empire. Do they not have freeer economic policies, do they not have an open mentality. Read again the definition of innovation.

USA because of Trump 100x better because they had 15000 protest?
Are you just dumb or trolling now. If you want to have a real discussion then stop trolling.
You protest because you think something is bad and you want to change something. In this regarding change comes after such protests. When you protest against Trump or trumps policies, the freedom and making the country better doesnt come from Trump, it comes because of him....

What has culture to do with anything of this?
Again the question is if absolutism holds back innovation, and why the great divergence started in England.
Your culture changes over time if you havent noticed. Death penalty, burning witches was quite normal in England, now its not. Traditions change, it just takes time, so dont attribute culture this this...
Also i pointed out they started from rock bottom. Do you agree with this or not? Stop bringing up useless shit.

Yes China has been at the top of the world for nearly all centuries in written human history.
Then again, why did they not experience the great divergence, and did the West do?
Tell me why Japan became so rich so fast, when they abolished absolutism, the same for the other Asian Tigers.
Sure some absolutist countries can become very rich very fast, like the oil rich countries or Venezuela in the 70s, but you know this isnt real wealth. Its temporary wealth. You as a Russian should know what it means when your country leans on gas and oil exports. Russia and slump/ down oil prices > economic depression.

I didnt say chinese arent innovative, they are very innovative people. I said absolutism holds back innovation. Stop putting words into another. So where is your argument for absolutism?

5g, parler?
Was that my example? Why dont you go into the example i gave? Seems to me you have no arguments and you dont take any stance. Youre just blank.
To my understanding, parler is american.
And why would you attribute 5g to totalitarian way of China?
Its Korea who introduced 5G as the first country.
Oh and btw, we have the internet because of, you guessed it , the americans.

First you say China can never be threat because of Ocean, then you say it will be a threat when usa says so. Make up your mind.
China can always become a threat to US dominance, thats what i argued there.
For example. There is a civil war in Russia. Can Chinese proxies win against US proxies in that case. If china can challenge US dominance in that way then they pose a threat.
An ocean doesnt stop that. As if USSR never posed a threat to US dominance.

Why America would worry about Chinese- chinese relations? (taiwan- china)
So should Germany invade Kalinigrad and make it German again?
Do Taiwanese people have a say what happens to they country?
USA worries because they are as you know the world power. Their backyard is nowadays every continent. And because of their power, every country will ask them for help. Its not as if Taiwanese government is extremely against USA, if that were the case then obviously USA would rethink its taiwanese policy.

Read about the great divergence. A good book would be guns, steel, germs from jared diamond or China, europe and making the modern world from Kenneth pomeranz.

1. East asian tigers were dictatorships when their economies boomed(Singap, ROK)... its common knowledge... plus they had access to the largest market in the world - USA, like Japan. For decades.
So much about your freedom and fair competition in the economy. Just another proof that absolutism with market economy is more effiicient than democracy or communism.

2. People flee poverty, not lack of freedom. They couldn't care less about politics as long they have money. Take away money from americans and west europeans and watch the bloodbath. They wont give a dime about whos white, black, conservative, immigrant or atheist.
They teach you narrative how your vote matters and you are great democracy, while they(oligarchs) maintain the hierarchy with money, liberty. We don't live the Orwellian distopia, but Brave new world.

3. There is no definite answer for Great Divergence, but in layman term, it is mostly due to european colonialist mercantilism (greed), you guessed it - oligarchs. Common european was farming and living peacefully for centuries until oligarchs recruit him to fight for some catholic leagues, habsburgs, ancien regimes, coalitions. The oligarchs made 'companies' to get richer, east indian company, dutch indonesian company whatnot, facilitating trade and finance, followed by brutal wars to genocide local populations to extract resources from their native land. Abundance of new resources forced people to find a way to 'mold' it into a product and sell it for profit(tech inov). A noble endevour for a commoner, who can, now, make a life easier for all of us, but the end goal is the same - money for the oligarch.

4. Russian? I am no russian you noob, just another proof you see Russians anywhere people disagree with your worldview. Thats racism actually.
I said 100 times and i will say again... i am Buryat. there are f*cking 200 nations in Russia (hence the federation, not republic..), not everyone is Russian... Russians comprised 50% of USSR population, 70% of RF today. They were never the dominant group and even crosses have crescent moon on them because literally half the population of russia were muslims for its existence. Of course this goes against your Russia bad narrative.
And i am not even from Russia, my mother emigrated due to bad living standard when USSR collapsed, which is interesting, democratic Russia is losing 1 million people a year (less babies, more dead, not emigration) while communist Russia was adding 2.5 million each year, doubling the population or its 70 years of existance (from 140m to 290m) and that after surviving WW2. So if you want russians to stop pointing out how communism was better, and you want your beloved democracy in Russia, you should do more than bringing tanks to baltic and repeating like a parror 'bad russia'.

1.
Four asian tiger economies:
Singapore: https://prnt.sc/xrumdk
Representative democracy began in the 1940s when the number of elected seats in the legislature gradually increased, until a fully elected Legislative Assembly of Singapore was established in 1958.
The start of democracy coincided with the rapid growths. From the 60s until the 90s an average growth rate of 7%
Now it ranks 75th on the democracy index, a few spots below some EU member states. https://prnt.sc/xruorx
GDP per capita since 1960: https://prnt.sc/xruro8

South korea:
SK officially stopped being a dictatorship in 1972, prior to it starting its democratic institutional proces. Mid- 60s it started to grow exceptionally fast, coincidently with the start of its democratic process. https://prnt.sc/xruv9l
Prior this event, there were already elections and democratic institutions set in place.
SK gdp growth per year: https://prnt.sc/xrux6b
As you can see the line coincides with the democratization.

Taiwans transition started late 70s - mid 80s into a democracy. https://prnt.sc/xruyq2
I dont know how much of this country.
I have the statistics from mid 80s onwards. And well the transition into democracy played very well for them... https://prnt.sc/xrv0lv

Hong Kong transitioned in the mid 80s but officially they got a democracy in 1997. But as you should know, they were ruled by the british. Which were as you know a democracy...
And its gdp growth, well here you go: https://prnt.sc/xrv3ad

If your argument is that absolutism with market economy is so much sufficient as you say, then why the fuck did they transition into a democratic system.
Why the fuck is Vietnam letting loose its communist and authoritarian government and becoming more democratic, even tho they fought 'the american war' for communism.

If freedom does not matter but economics do, as you say. Then why do we have political asylums? Why do in every absolutist system a brain drain happens. In USSR youd be killed if you fled to the west. Surely it had all to do with the money and your unemployment and nothing to do that these people did not like the political system.
Why then did so many jews flee germany when hitler came to power and restricted their political freedoms.
Again people fled the DDR because they wanted to go to the rich and politicaly free west.
The netherlands and England golden age came to be because many people were prosecuted and wanted political freedom.Hence there was a split in the Church. More political freedom > more innovation > start of industrialization in England > the great divergence.

Yes sure oligarchs control the politics. Yeah sure. In china there is no such thing as perfect competition. If you had knowledge of economics, you'd know the best economy is perfect competition. And i believe the Western world is the closest to such a thing.

3. Its widely ackknowledge that the start of the great divergence is the start of the industrial revolution. Again common sense. So no about colonialism. Even in 1600 china was way ahead then Europe technologically. But since their population was so high, on average they would have less gdp per capita. see below.
https://prnt.sc/xrvbyw
Mercantilism is a economic way to promote your exports more than imports. Thus it promotes colonialism and imperialism.
Chinese gdp per capita in 1600 : around 900$ https://prnt.sc/xrvez9
Western European gdp per capita in 1600 : around 900$ https://prnt.sc/xrvhll
i really dont know what the point is you want to make and how it is relevant.

Now give me an example of western european democracies which are ruled by oligarchs.
And compare it to the widely ackknowledge oligarchy ruled countries such as saudi arabia, russia and china... https://prnt.sc/xrvs8u

4.
In a post some months ago, you'd commented as introduced yourself to me. A comment where you brought up my profile which stated that im from UK.
You stated that you are a Russian - greek. I am sure this was u.
But ok. so you are buryat? no idea what this is, but do you have russian passport? Is your native language russian? Anyway, i thought you are russian because you said this before..
Russian population was 50% muslims? In what parallel universe and in what age are you talkin about? give me some proof.
I have literally no idea what you are on about in your 4th point? Tanks to baltics? my bad russian narrative? Russian population decline?
The fuck? japan also has a population decline.
Population decline is normal for countries which have low migration and an aging population...
Having less babies is normal for an educated and self providing sufficient country.
When a country is poor, people will get more babies because the government cannot provide for when you are old.
Furthermore, you want more children because there is a huge probability your children wont reach the 2-6 year. Poor country > less medicine.
Then there is education. The more educated your population becomes, especially women, the less women will want to get children.
A woman will want a career, and not many kids and is more independent from a man.

How many deaths did communist USSR have because of its policies? China with the great famine? Yeah sure, the oh so great communism.
https://prnt.sc/xrwtr3

USSR had population growth because they were making babies like rabbits. Now those people are old. And the young people do not make as many babies as before because they dont need or want too. Their own choice.Who the fuck would want to have 15 children anyway.

Again. get your facts straight before commenting me.

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 26.01.2021 at 15:44

Általa írva Fatcheek, 26.01.2021 at 09:55

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Általa írva Fatcheek, 25.01.2021 at 14:37

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 22.01.2021 at 08:12

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

Általa írva International, 17.01.2021 at 07:09

I don't see how you believe that democracy is the one that causes all the innovation. The Soviet Union was the firsts one to send a human into space and had a very successful Space Program and had established of networks of water, electricity, heating, and transport almost free.
You keep using England as an example, but do you not realize England was not a democracy before 1918? and when they were a democracy, women couldn't vote for some time. That's a pretty huge portion of the population not being able to vote...

If protests are good for the government, I wonder why Hong Kong is a piece of garbage after the protests. I wonder why the Insurrection at the capitol didn't make the government better... and btw, it's not like you can't criticize the government, or do demonstrations for new policies in China, Legal protests exist too. Those things happen all the time. Chinese Criticism Network is much more effective than the western one and doesn't lead to shit like Insurrections, attempting to overthrow the government like in the US, and burning down entire sections of cities. Not even gonna write much on the book print thing, but just saying, 5G..

Your being in-denial when you claiming China is nowhere near a superpower. The Number of Mega Projects that China has planned is remarkable, and China holds lots of control over the world stage. and gets more powerful by the day. Meanwhile, the US has been isolating itself from World Issues.

US Debt Bubble explodes one day btw, Thats is the death of the United States of America.

Ýes the USSR send the first human to space. Yes they had networks of water, electricity, heating and yes free transportation.
Do you realize how much they spent on human space exploration?

It is no wonder Elon musk is situated in you know....USA.
Space exploration costs a lot of money. Main reason the US stopped going into space again.
What i mean by absolutism holds back innovation. ( i thought this is common sense lol) is for example:
Russia had a totalitarian state when they were USSR. Communist as well.
What if the revolution in 1917 did not make them communist, but rather democratic and a bit like western europe. Would you not think that Russia would have had many more technological inventions.
In history, people flee from totalitarian systems and go to places were they are welcomed. In todays world, the open places are democratic. Why that matters? Smart people always flee the country at first. This is called brain drain. Why do you think they put up the Berlin wall? Was it not because of this brain drain? Surely east germany was rich af unlike the west

Why i bring up England? Where did the great divergence start and when.. boy this is high school level shit.
In England, absolutism vanished in 1688... the year of the Glorious Revolution. Im not talking about democracy and if and when women could vote.
For example, in Russia the Tsars ruled until 1905 or well into the first world war.

Do i really have to explain why protesting for change is a good thing? Sure, looting is bad, sure killing is bad. But thats not protesting.
If your life was in a house with 4 people. 1 person is the absolutist ruler and decides everything. You want something to change, how will you achieve this? protest and demand change.
Hong Kong is a special case , because it is part of China. But what if Hong kong people want to be independent? What if they are extremely against the totalitarian rule in China. Should or shouldnt they protest? I mean cmon, use your common sense.

Yes China is becoming stronger by the year. They have 1.3 billion people, what did you expect? But neither in soft nor hard power they are a challenge yet to USA. USA hightlight was in 1991 and since then its declining, but cmon we dont live in a multipolar world. There is only 1 superpower, which is USA and China is nowhere close it it. They are getting close to USA dominance, but it the USA still has its dominance until like 2050. I even expect China to get a revolution by then and a civil war which kills their economy before 2050.

USA debt is fine... if you had knowledge of economics you'd realize debt in this financial world is good, as long as you have a good economy and or in USA case, as long as you hold the dominant power.
Greece has in the eurocrises had/has huge debts. This isnt normally a problem as long as you have a good economy which translates into confidence of the financial markets in your country > which then translates into lower interests for your payment of debt. https://prnt.sc/xo7ra1
USA debt is just normal as other countries.
In the case of US, it actually benefits them to have more debt. Its weird but thats how economics work.
Simple explanation:
USA has good rating > pays 0.5% interest for its debts
Greece has bad rating > pays 15% interest for its debts.
A smart guy would take a loan of 0.5% interest and lend it to the guy who pays 15% interest.
Ofcourse there is much to it , but this is simplified.

USA has the luck of being geographically positioned well, and having all the resources it needs. It is literally the only country who can isolate itself from the world and stay sufficient. China on the other hand, does not have the necessary resources....

no, in fact if it weren't for stalins 5 year plans, russia would probably look like a northern african country. now I'm not defending stalin at all, but just stating that the country was so far back and it had to industrialize fast. The USSR had almost nothing to work with, as it was a poor country under the tsar's rule. The fact that it became such a superpower was amazing on its own. Western countries were isolating eastern countries from trade cause "we don't wanna trade with those cOmMunIST CoUNTRIeS" which heavily affected the communist countries economies. If you were isolated from trading with half the world, you were damaged because of world wars and the being poor already at that, of course your country is gonna be fucking poor. western countries attempting to pull away educated to starve out the country doesn't help. America and European countries basically bullied all Communist countries in submission. be real, if communist countries traded with western countries in harmony, world would be red right now.

and no, US debt is not fine. 27 trillion dollars of debt, about to be 29 trillion btw, is pretty bad. the US can't borrow forever. Debt should not be bigger then the economy itself. Eventually, private borrowing will be crowded out if the government's debt continues to grow, and interest rates will rise. investors will just stop investing in the US, and that's where the recession happens. The system is just bound to fail, just not for now. but keep borrowing from the future..

Általa írva Fatcheek, 28.01.2021 at 21:58

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 26.01.2021 at 15:44

Általa írva Fatcheek, 26.01.2021 at 09:55

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 25.01.2021 at 15:56

Általa írva Fatcheek, 25.01.2021 at 14:37

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 22.01.2021 at 08:12

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 20.01.2021 at 11:44

Általa írva International, 17.01.2021 at 07:09

Ýes the USSR send the first human to space. Yes they had networks of water, electricity, heating and yes free transportation.
Do you realize how much they spent on human space exploration?

It is no wonder Elon musk is situated in you know....USA.
Space exploration costs a lot of money. Main reason the US stopped going into space again.
What i mean by absolutism holds back innovation. ( i thought this is common sense lol) is for example:
Russia had a totalitarian state when they were USSR. Communist as well.
What if the revolution in 1917 did not make them communist, but rather democratic and a bit like western europe. Would you not think that Russia would have had many more technological inventions.
In history, people flee from totalitarian systems and go to places were they are welcomed. In todays world, the open places are democratic. Why that matters? Smart people always flee the country at first. This is called brain drain. Why do you think they put up the Berlin wall? Was it not because of this brain drain? Surely east germany was rich af unlike the west

Why i bring up England? Where did the great divergence start and when.. boy this is high school level shit.
In England, absolutism vanished in 1688... the year of the Glorious Revolution. Im not talking about democracy and if and when women could vote.
For example, in Russia the Tsars ruled until 1905 or well into the first world war.

Do i really have to explain why protesting for change is a good thing? Sure, looting is bad, sure killing is bad. But thats not protesting.
If your life was in a house with 4 people. 1 person is the absolutist ruler and decides everything. You want something to change, how will you achieve this? protest and demand change.
Hong Kong is a special case , because it is part of China. But what if Hong kong people want to be independent? What if they are extremely against the totalitarian rule in China. Should or shouldnt they protest? I mean cmon, use your common sense.

Yes China is becoming stronger by the year. They have 1.3 billion people, what did you expect? But neither in soft nor hard power they are a challenge yet to USA. USA hightlight was in 1991 and since then its declining, but cmon we dont live in a multipolar world. There is only 1 superpower, which is USA and China is nowhere close it it. They are getting close to USA dominance, but it the USA still has its dominance until like 2050. I even expect China to get a revolution by then and a civil war which kills their economy before 2050.

USA debt is fine... if you had knowledge of economics you'd realize debt in this financial world is good, as long as you have a good economy and or in USA case, as long as you hold the dominant power.
Greece has in the eurocrises had/has huge debts. This isnt normally a problem as long as you have a good economy which translates into confidence of the financial markets in your country > which then translates into lower interests for your payment of debt. https://prnt.sc/xo7ra1
USA debt is just normal as other countries.
In the case of US, it actually benefits them to have more debt. Its weird but thats how economics work.
Simple explanation:
USA has good rating > pays 0.5% interest for its debts
Greece has bad rating > pays 15% interest for its debts.
A smart guy would take a loan of 0.5% interest and lend it to the guy who pays 15% interest.
Ofcourse there is much to it , but this is simplified.

USA has the luck of being geographically positioned well, and having all the resources it needs. It is literally the only country who can isolate itself from the world and stay sufficient. China on the other hand, does not have the necessary resources....

no, in fact if it weren't for stalins 5 year plans, russia would probably look like a northern african country. now I'm not defending stalin at all, but just stating that the country was so far back and it had to industrialize fast. The USSR had almost nothing to work with, as it was a poor country under the tsar's rule. The fact that it became such a superpower was amazing on its own. Western countries were isolating eastern countries from trade cause "we don't wanna trade with those cOmMunIST CoUNTRIeS" which heavily affected the communist countries economies. If you were isolated from trading with half the world, you were damaged because of world wars and the being poor already at that, of course your country is gonna be fucking poor. western countries attempting to pull away educated to starve out the country doesn't help. America and European countries basically bullied all Communist countries in submission. be real, if communist countries traded with western countries in harmony, world would be red right now.

and no, US debt is not fine. 27 trillion dollars of debt, about to be 29 trillion btw, is pretty bad. the US can't borrow forever. Debt should not be bigger then the economy itself. Eventually, private borrowing will be crowded out if the government's debt continues to grow, and interest rates will rise. investors will just stop investing in the US, and that's where the recession happens. The system is just bound to fail, just not for now. but keep borrowing from the future..

Russia would look like an african country if it werent for stalins 5 year plans? Can you back this?
Do you know what happened after stalins death and what the term DE- STALINIZATION proces meant?
Maybe youre living in communist era still, but newsflash communism didnt work. Soviet economy busted.
Even Russians themselves agree on this view.... thats why it is called DE- STALINIZATION....

So youre giving all this benefit to stalin? because of what, he enhanced ussr economy? Compared to what, relative to what? American economy boomed way more than USSR economy. Same goes for many other countries. Why didnt Stalins boom more?
Here is a graph of gdp growth per year of USSR since 1913 till 1990 and compared to other countries.
https://prnt.sc/xskdd7
As you can see, under the Tsar the gdp was around 1.000, thereafter because of the first world war it declined. Under the communists it didnt grow that much, until well into the mid 1930 it was kinda stagnant.
Now tell me how great the 5 years plans under stalin worked out?
While many democracies, even oil rich countries have caught up with US gdp, Russia has not. It remains very very very far behind.
Ask any Polish or any former soviet republics in eastern europe what they think about Soviet rule and how it affected their economy.
The answer is always the same; The russians fucked us over, we could have grown so much but soviet rule was holding everything back.

Western economies were isolating the eastern economies? how? What kind of fabricating historic fact is this.
Its the soviets that didnt want eastern europe to get marshall help.
Its the soviets that put up fences, and didnt allow travel. Its the soviets that didnt want to trade. Stop this fake history. https://prnt.sc/xsl1qr
Also please read up again what a communist economy means.... i mean youre kinda contradicting yourself so hard here.
The west didnt pull away the educated. The educated WANTED to leave the communist countries.
Just like when the european has opened its borders, many educated people from other low salary countries want to come here and work. THIS IS COMMON SENSE. Its called migration.

If communist countries traded with the west? In what fucking dimension are u living. The west HAS free economy, which means u could come and sell your goods here. (if u pay the tarifs etc). Its the east that HAD CLOSED borders. Cmon use your brain fatcheek, this is highschool level shit.

I explained to you why debt doesnt matter for usa.
Ill use elementary level for you to understand why it doesnt matter.
The usa debt grows, more bonds issued. Will these bonds be paid back in the future? Yes. Why? US dollar is world currency. USA economy is healthy. Corruption is low. Henceforth, confidence in paying back those bonds is high. This results in low interest rates for these bonds.
USA 10 year bonds have an interest rate of 0.10% https://prnt.sc/xslnoo
For russia this is 6.3% https://prnt.sc/xslplb

Simply put: higher interest rates means that the government has to pay higher interest on their debt.
The USA pays 0.1% for its debt, Russia pays 6.3%.
Now again, explain to me why USA debt would be a bad thing for US government? And yes they can borrow money forever. We live in a debt economy world. I hope you understand now why this debt is not such a problem for USA. However for countries such as Greece, brazil etc. this interest rate will be much highe.Why? because these countries are not HEALTHY.

Why do you think buying bonds in Greece was/ is so high compared to Germany?
The greek bonds at one point were 17%... https://prnt.sc/xslysf
In this case, having a huge debt means you pay a lot of interest. Hope you kinda understand this subject now.
And i havent been talked about inflation nor economic growth. The debts value decline each year as well.

Általa írva Fatcheek, 28.01.2021 at 21:58

and no, US debt is not fine. 27 trillion dollars of debt, about to be 29 trillion btw, is pretty bad. the US can't borrow forever. Debt should not be bigger then the economy itself. Eventually, private borrowing will be crowded out if the government's debt continues to grow, and interest rates will rise. investors will just stop investing in the US, and that's where the recession happens. The system is just bound to fail, just not for now. but keep borrowing from the future..

Look what he said:

'USA debt is fine... if you had knowledge of economics you'd realize debt in this financial world is good, as long as you have a good economy and or in USA case, as long as you hold the dominant power'

Lol.. 1970's schools of economics taught students that if national debt exceeds 70% of GDP the economy IS collapsing. And look at US now, 110% debt, UK 300%, Japan 300%, Luxemburg was at 900% in 10-15 years ago.
And what is Itssgg1122 definion?: 'as long USA is the dominant power'. Basically he is saying as long we are imperialists we're good. Let's plunder, steal and underpay resources and services. And if Western regimes change the rules again (like 100% debt is 'good' now), he will keep supporting them and cite bloombergs and other imperialist and oligarchic platforms.
He still have to learn that capitalism and imperialism are different ideologies.

Don't waste time, he lack basic knowledge about the topic and keep repeating age old trope.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 29.01.2021 at 02:45

Általa írva Fatcheek, 28.01.2021 at 21:58

and no, US debt is not fine. 27 trillion dollars of debt, about to be 29 trillion btw, is pretty bad. the US can't borrow forever. Debt should not be bigger then the economy itself. Eventually, private borrowing will be crowded out if the government's debt continues to grow, and interest rates will rise. investors will just stop investing in the US, and that's where the recession happens. The system is just bound to fail, just not for now. but keep borrowing from the future..

Look what he said:

'USA debt is fine... if you had knowledge of economics you'd realize debt in this financial world is good, as long as you have a good economy and or in USA case, as long as you hold the dominant power'

Lol.. 1970's schools of economics taught students that if national debt exceeds 70% of GDP the economy IS collapsing. And look at US now, 110% debt, UK 300%, Japan 300%, Luxemburg was at 900% in 10-15 years ago.
And what is Itssgg1122 definion?: 'as long USA is the dominant power'. Basically he is saying as long we are imperialists we're good. Let's plunder, steal and underpay resources and services. And if Western regimes change the rules again (like 100% debt is 'good' now), he will keep supporting them and cite bloombergs and other imperialist and oligarchic platforms.
He still have to learn that capitalism and imperialism are different ideologies.

Don't waste time, he lack basic knowledge about the topic and keep repeating age old trope.

Did i somewhere mention that i support the usa policies? Again your putting words into another.
As long as USA is the dominant power means, the currency will hold its reserve world currency. Its currency will stay stable, countries nor financial markets wont ever think that the US will go bankrupt. Please educate yourself, this isnt some rocket science...

And about imperialism, yes the USA is in my opinion an empire and has imperialistic characteristics. Idk why or how its relevant since i dont disagree with you there. The subject of the matter was that US debt wont matter as long as confidence in USA is good.

And now about your statements, oh boy how easy it is to trash anything you say. You make it so easy.
Japanese debt to gdp is 237%
Uk debt to gdp is 88%
Usa debt to gdp is 106%

Can you provide me some sources of luxembourg debt to gdp from the last 15 years, and especially where it says 900%. Lol.

The western world hasnt also experienced unlimited growth. Please use your brain. I said as long as the confidence in the economy is good. For example, Netherlands, germany, whole west europe , should actually take more debts and boast their economy if that economy is not growing as fast as it should, just like now with corona. Good economies with confidence from markets can borrow almost unlimited to save their economies, bad and unhealthy economies, for example Brazil will go bankrupt. Just look at what bolsanaro said two weeks ago, "we dont have money" we gonna go bankrupt and theres nothing i can do".

Andartes, 1970 is 50 years ago. Dont you think knowledge about this has been improved? Remember how people thought in 1920 and compare it to 1970. Cmon man

From all your comments, i get a feeling, that u think you know shit, while in truth u know nothing. And i hope people will factcheck you when they read any of your statements. Because its mostly some vague, false, complot theory, without any sources.

Általa írva ITSGG1122, 29.01.2021 at 05:24

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 29.01.2021 at 02:45

Általa írva Fatcheek, 28.01.2021 at 21:58

and no, US debt is not fine. 27 trillion dollars of debt, about to be 29 trillion btw, is pretty bad. the US can't borrow forever. Debt should not be bigger then the economy itself. Eventually, private borrowing will be crowded out if the government's debt continues to grow, and interest rates will rise. investors will just stop investing in the US, and that's where the recession happens. The system is just bound to fail, just not for now. but keep borrowing from the future..

Look what he said:

'USA debt is fine... if you had knowledge of economics you'd realize debt in this financial world is good, as long as you have a good economy and or in USA case, as long as you hold the dominant power'

Lol.. 1970's schools of economics taught students that if national debt exceeds 70% of GDP the economy IS collapsing. And look at US now, 110% debt, UK 300%, Japan 300%, Luxemburg was at 900% in 10-15 years ago.
And what is Itssgg1122 definion?: 'as long USA is the dominant power'. Basically he is saying as long we are imperialists we're good. Let's plunder, steal and underpay resources and services. And if Western regimes change the rules again (like 100% debt is 'good' now), he will keep supporting them and cite bloombergs and other imperialist and oligarchic platforms.
He still have to learn that capitalism and imperialism are different ideologies.

Don't waste time, he lack basic knowledge about the topic and keep repeating age old trope.

Did i somewhere mention that i support the usa policies? Again your putting words into another.
As long as USA is the dominant power means, the currency will hold its reserve world currency. Its currency will stay stable, countries nor financial markets wont ever think that the US will go bankrupt. Please educate yourself, this isnt some rocket science...

And about imperialism, yes the USA is in my opinion an empire and has imperialistic characteristics. Idk why or how its relevant since i dont disagree with you there. The subject of the matter was that US debt wont matter as long as confidence in USA is good.

And now about your statements, oh boy how easy it is to trash anything you say. You make it so easy.
Japanese debt to gdp is 237%
Uk debt to gdp is 88%
Usa debt to gdp is 106%

Can you provide me some sources of luxembourg debt to gdp from the last 15 years, and especially where it says 900%. Lol.

The western world hasnt also experienced unlimited growth. Please use your brain. I said as long as the confidence in the economy is good. For example, Netherlands, germany, whole west europe , should actually take more debts and boast their economy if that economy is not growing as fast as it should, just like now with corona. Good economies with confidence from markets can borrow almost unlimited to save their economies, bad and unhealthy economies, for example Brazil will go bankrupt. Just look at what bolsanaro said two weeks ago, "we dont have money" we gonna go bankrupt and theres nothing i can do".

Andartes, 1970 is 50 years ago. Dont you think knowledge about this has been improved? Remember how people thought in 1920 and compare it to 1970. Cmon man

From all your comments, i get a feeling, that u think you know shit, while in truth u know nothing. And i hope people will factcheck you when they read any of your statements. Because its mostly some vague, false, complot theory, without any sources.

Apparently, you have a really bad understanding of the economy. Considering you think you can just borrow money forever the way the US does... no you really can't. When your debt grows above your economy then there is something really wrong with your country. Debt cannot grow faster than the economy does, Investors will eventually decide that the US is not a trustable investment when they realize the US economy is screwed. To pay for the loans, you have to create more money. Considering the debt is now bigger than the economy, Inflation will eventually catch up and kill the US economy. This isn't hard to register since it's basic economics. Once investors stop loaning the US Government money, It's basically a dead country. The US Economy will obviously start to inflate, interest rates will go up, and the economy will collapse. I wouldn't be surprised if US Credit Score is decreased considering it's coming to the point where US Debt will be impossible to repay, The mere fact that it's still an AA+ is funny.

It's only a matter of time at this rate. An economic crisis is lingering over the united states at this rate, Which will just cost future generations.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 29.01.2021 at 02:45

Általa írva Fatcheek, 28.01.2021 at 21:58

and no, US debt is not fine. 27 trillion dollars of debt, about to be 29 trillion btw, is pretty bad. the US can't borrow forever. Debt should not be bigger then the economy itself. Eventually, private borrowing will be crowded out if the government's debt continues to grow, and interest rates will rise. investors will just stop investing in the US, and that's where the recession happens. The system is just bound to fail, just not for now. but keep borrowing from the future..

Look what he said:

'USA debt is fine... if you had knowledge of economics you'd realize debt in this financial world is good, as long as you have a good economy and or in USA case, as long as you hold the dominant power'

Lol.. 1970's schools of economics taught students that if national debt exceeds 70% of GDP the economy IS collapsing. And look at US now, 110% debt, UK 300%, Japan 300%, Luxemburg was at 900% in 10-15 years ago.
And what is Itssgg1122 definion?: 'as long USA is the dominant power'. Basically he is saying as long we are imperialists we're good. Let's plunder, steal and underpay resources and services. And if Western regimes change the rules again (like 100% debt is 'good' now), he will keep supporting them and cite bloombergs and other imperialist and oligarchic platforms.
He still have to learn that capitalism and imperialism are different ideologies.

Don't waste time, he lack basic knowledge about the topic and keep repeating age old trope.

yeah I should probably stop responding since I'm loosing braincells but oh well