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

you dont see Vietnamese growing wheat, no do you?

and rice needs water

thats what rice fields look like

this is what potato fields look like

@McBacoon oh for fuck sake, stop trying to derail the discussion with points that have no value.

Rice was an example of how climate effects you, not a statement that you need it. Fucking hell man.

<:what:402599423982436352>

rice is in no way an example of how climate effects us

wtf

rice doesent mean shit

@McBacoon oh for fucks sake. You're an intelligent person but you are far too stubborn to be having these conversations.

eehh

prolly

<a:partywizard:398237697485045762>

@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.