@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.

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.