Pure Socialism leads to a dead end because it lacks incentives, and pure capitalism is equally problematic, because wealth tends to concentrate into the hands of a powerful few.
The best systems, it seems to me, are a combination of both approaches. Think Denmark today (or Canada to a lesser degree) or the United States in the post war years.
I have no problem with people making lots of money,but I also have no problem with steeply progressive taxation, which provides the funding to provide everyone with the basic necessities of life.
It's political extremists and idealists who create the problems.
Or we can just wait until things blow up and hope that we'll be a survivor. But I think that's the worst of all possible choices, since we can easily see what's coming.
If you leave billions of people in desperation while the rich continue to live like royalty (denying basic health care is a perfect example of forcing people into desperation) then you can't be surprised when people revolt.
At some point there aren't enough cops (unless you make the state itself an organ of complete repression, like in North Korea) and "let them eat cake..." at some point fails to keeps the hoards at bay.
Return to Odd
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Reply to message