the difference is they always had a degree of free market competition

the USSR had none at all

therefore it failed to grow as competitively

That wasn't the deciding factor

the right model of the bolsheviks was more favourable

Keynesianism doesnt work

the NEP could have allowed the USSR what it needed

That's already been proved

but they went straight for collectivisation

And then we have to ask the question - Is economic growth the ultimate good? @sunman

It's not.

I don't think it is

Economic growth is not a be all end all

but i dont agree with economic stagnation either

Look at what has happened to western Europe and

The US

Their cultures and societies have completely collapsed

that is due to immigration policy

Degenerative beyond belief

i agree

@sunman No, immigrants are a Symptom

Not a root cause

immigration policy brought them here

Consumerism and apathy led to immigrants

i'd agree again

Who do you think are the biggest pushers for immigration?

Mega Corporations

among others, yes

Brings in cheaper labor and reduces costs

Why? Because people worship the god of Consumerism

like I said im a market interventionist and mixed economist, i'm an economic centrist...

I just dont agree with planned economies

i dont think full blown communism is the answer

AI Planned Economy is superior

Prove me wrong

the market does need regulation, but the free market shouldn't be destroyed entirely

I don't agree with full communism

The free market shoudlng exist however

explain to me distributism according to oyu

Private entities should obey the state

as well as what a command economy is

I'm not gonna bother with that, I'll explain my ideal economic situation