@Tyberius D To get back to the main issue, your basic contention is that countries that have less ability to generate capital are better off under socialism, right?

@Tyberius D I would generally see this as non-essential to the argument. All countries must have the ability to produce something, regardless of difficulty. In general, i think that production is better facilitated by a capitalist system. Further, it creates incentives for entrepreneurship, which helps to make countries more productive. I don't see how socialism creates entrepreneurs.

The fuck, where did my reply go? Must have lost connection. Damnit, gotta redo this...

Sorry dude!

@Wyatt_Earp Countries should never go full capitalist or socialist. I think some countries have such issues with capital they can't function realistically under Capitalism without an outside suppiler. Biggest examples are Russia, China, and Japan. Russia went into a version of State Capitalism in the 2000s because the country couldn't generate enough capital to keep the economy moving. Japan had to have an Empire just to afford feeding itself, if not for them being part of the American economic/security alliance, they would starve.

Production is indeed better under Capitalism. Capitalism effectively runs on autopilot, while Socialism has to be managed. It's why the USSR fell apart but China didn't. USSR put so much into military buildup they forgot to leave anything for bread and milk. China went State Capitalist and became an export nation.

@Tyberius D Okay, then I think we would probably agree in theory, perhaps not in practice. I definitely would agree that there are sectors of an economy that would need to be controlled by a government because the free market wouldn't sufficiently address it. Public safety and roads are examples of public goods that are only provided for by a government.

The debate comes down to which sectors should be government controlled and which should be allowed to operate under the free market. Health care is a good example of such contention.

@Wyatt_Earp agreed on health care.

If there is an overall point that I have to make, the biggest difference between a capitalist country and a socialist country is how they handle their banking and finance. If you have to continue to print money to keep the system running, you'll be running as State Capitalist. If you can simply tax some commerce and throw a few regulations in, you have Interventionism.

Alright, @Wyatt_Earp has been warned for '**Posted an invite**'.

But western economies do both

Russias financial crisis after USSR fell had more reasons than just going capitalist. Its that their martkets fell off. Since I live in Estonia (which was also illegally occupied by the USSR for 50 years) I dare to say I know alot about it...

BUT

Do you think Norway is more socialist than capitalist? @Tyberius D

@McBacoon and remind us why the markets fell off?

The Nordic countries are hard to place on the spectrum. But I would say it's more capitalistic by the fact they don't have to shove money through the system to make it work.

well... I would kinda say Norway is a state capitalism, the state heavily regulates their economy and is involved in alot of aspects (most notably the oil and gas industry that started in the ?70s? when they had killer demands)

but the markets fell off because the USSR collapsed, but so it for the former USSR nations... we were struggling too (just that we recovered quicker) and Russia was still stubborn and didnt open new markets with the old socialist republics

it thought they would collapse

but wel... history played its cards...

@McBacoon Norway regulates the holy hell out of their economy. But I'm pretty sure they don't print money Non-Stop to give it to their Central Bank to loan out (Iike Russia or China.)

Agreed with everything except the recovery of Russia. I don't think Russia could have recovered as a capitalist country. The upkeep costs are just too damn high.

and what do you mean by upkeep costs?

like military?

@McBacoon that counts, but the worst for the Russians is their infrastructure bill. The country is huge, but has less railroads than Germany.

their infrastructure bill is realy heavy behind the Urals

where they have a few bigger cities

but they have no net-gain from these cities

actually Russia could be a prosperous country

I mean, the country has the whole fucking *mendeleev periodic table*

but that money goes to the wrong pockets...

@McBacoon if they pulled back West of the Urals they could indeed do great. It would be a yellow on the chart, and be a function Capitalist country.

and crack down on corruption

...lmao

who am I kidding

that will never happen

like their socialist utopia

<:haha:522095139708207125>

Communism didn't work.

It never will.

Oh but they haven’t tried the real communism that works yet /s

what communism is that

i swear you go so fucking many

if one doesnt work you just make another

Whatever the flavour of the month is I guess