Haha! I love the "mate." I am not southern, but I'll talk to y'all later.

Be safe and remember fuck feminism

at school

peace out

@Wyatt_Earp my personal viewpoint of socialism is that it's a counterbalance to capitalism. Capitalism has some serious flaws that brought the rise of the socialists in the 1840s. However, Socialism turns out as a few problems of higher severity. This is why every country (except NK) does a mix in an attempt to get the better of both systems while mitigating their flaws. Tends to work, but you need the right balance. Some nations are better for Capitalism because of their geography, these rest need more Socialism to generate funding for their economy (blue/green needs Capitalism, orange/red needs Socialism.)

@Tyberius D gimme an example where capitalism is practiced with socialism

and the ease of economic development in Estonia being "decent" hmm <:thunk:341213924898766848>

<:doubt:371678187601526785>

@McBacoon almost every single country. Roads, education, and to a large degree healthcare are all socialized accross the world.

@McBacoon Estonia by climate would be orange, let your mess access to the Baltic would be green. Average it together you get yellow.

climate?

like

how hot it is?

lmao

wat

and define by what you mean under things like healthcare and roads being socialized?

@Tyberius D I am curious, what was the data for the graph? And what is it measuring? I am also curious as to why the countries in orange and red would need more socialism.

But as for the balance between capitalism and socialism, I see it like this: as Bastiat says, we all have a basic right to own property, and to dispose of it how we wish. That is where a capitalist free market comes from.

There are some cases were, in the interest of protecting property more effectively, individuals form collective groups to better provide for certain needs. You identified these as things like roads, public safety, and also national defense.

As part of the arrangement, individuals give up some of the property for these public goods, but the arrangement is not universal. It actually defeats the point if this model is extended to everything.

Yeah, climate. Building in a place that doesn't get too hot and has mild Winters is a lot cheaper than building in 105 degree rainforest, or 20 below permafrost.

Capitalism is economics via loaning, Socialism is economics via government spending. Last I checked, most countries have government funded roads and education.

```Building in a place that doesn't get too hot and has mild Winters is a lot cheaper than building in 105 degree rainforest, or 20 below permafrost.``` yeah... building doesent have much to do with that, but rather the upkeep costs... But given your criteria... we should get + points for that

```Capitalism is economics via loaning, Socialism is economics via government spending.``` lmao, that means full capitalistic countries have 100% of their GDP-s based on loans.... and no, thats not what socialism by its definition means

@Wyatt_Earp there's a long explanation to that, but the short version is: I took each country's natural ability to generate capital versus their natural input costs.

Property rights are great for Capitalists, a natural working system.

@McBacoon upkeep mainly yes, but building does get really expensive in certain cases.

Your climate is temporate cool, which means you have long winters and short growing seasons.

In Capitalism the gdp is a mix of loan based business and consumer spending.

The definition of Socialism is so vague and so misunderstood that most people have no idea what it actually is.

but short growing seasons doesent have much to do with ease of economic development

unless, you mean the state growth

@McBacoon are you kidding? Agriculture is the base building block of modern civilization. People need food, and if you have to pay for someone else's crops (from the food itself to the transportation) or grow it in house is a huge factor in where your capital goes.

so you do mean the growth of the country

and uhh

for example, Iceland

it imports most of its food

but appears to be doing fine

but us having short growing seasons, doesent limit us

not at all

due to our size (both geographiqal size and population) we arent that much affected by short growing seasons

@McBacoon in context if the map yes

Food isn't the only factor.

Iceland wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it wasn't part of the American security/economic alliance.

Can you grow rice?

That's true

and we cant grow rice

we mostly grow potatoes (we did that even during the Tsar era, after that people literally called s the "potato republic") and wheat etc...

some other cultures are also rising in popularity

due to processing places being built

Exactly, rice is an excellent example of how climate effects your economy. It's too cold and too short to grow rice. As far as buildings and infrastructure, you have fewer warm days and more cold days. Makes a difference.

rice doesent mean much, you could tell the guys in new york to start growing rice, would they?

there are other agricultural cultures that are grown according to the climate