What would be the alternative? Socialism and thus the standstill of further development? It would have to be extremely state-regulated capitalism. But above all taxes! So on the rich. Democracies would have to be able to protect their own form of government… but they didn’t think about it when they were founded because everyone was happy about the positive outcome. So that our democracies are attacked from within. Above all, America needed to regulate tech companies more. Tax havens should be prevented, etc.
Capitalism itself promotes further development. It just needs to be protected from abuse. Private individuals should never have too much money and therefore automatically have power.
If the state controls everything and resources etc. are distributed fairly, there is no competition.
“Where capitalism promotes efficiency, socialism focuses on equality and solidarity, a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor and the creation and maintenance of a level playing field”
Equality excludes the whole thing from the outset ( developing ). It would ultimately end in unequality.
That’s why it would have to be ( now it’s getting funny ) socialist capitalism.
Edit: State capitalism e.g. Scandinavia.
Would you now say that the people there are in a bad way?
Please note that there is a distinct difference between socialism and communism. You seem to be describing communism. Within a socialistic system there is still the concept of rich and poor and there is still the ability to create a better life through the effort of development. This specifically is the key distinction between socialism and capitalism.
So what you’re calling “socialist capitalism” turns out (funnily enough) to be just socialism which is in turn a capitalistic communism. :)
Btw, I have listed the reasons why things are currently failing in the West.
It would have to be extremely state-regulated capitalism (because of people like Musk,Bezos,Zuckerberg etc for example).
But above all: taxes! So on the rich. (So that taxes are distributed more fairly and, above all, the working class is relieved. In other words, taxes should go up and not down.
So that knowledge is not poached from friendly countries through low taxes. So that the state itself earns financially, which could ultimately be distributed fairly)
Democracies should be able to protect their own form of government… but they didn’t think about that when they were founded because everyone was happy about the positive outcome. So our democracies are under attack from within. ( So that the far right or far left can’t take over. Or can be destabilized by external influences. )
Above all, America should regulate tech companies more. ( No spying on citizens and such. No mass theft of intellectual property etc )
Tax havens should be prevented, etc( Because it enables tax evasion and other negative effects)
It just needs to be protected from abuse. Private individuals should never have too much money and therefore automatically power. ( Well, we can see the result if it is not protected in America. )
For example, I didn’t say a word about citizens holding power over the state. (Which of course should be the case)
What would be the alternative? Socialism and thus the standstill of further development? It would have to be extremely state-regulated capitalism. But above all taxes! So on the rich. Democracies would have to be able to protect their own form of government… but they didn’t think about it when they were founded because everyone was happy about the positive outcome. So that our democracies are attacked from within. Above all, America needed to regulate tech companies more. Tax havens should be prevented, etc. Capitalism itself promotes further development. It just needs to be protected from abuse. Private individuals should never have too much money and therefore automatically have power.
Why would socialist halt development?
If the state controls everything and resources etc. are distributed fairly, there is no competition.
“Where capitalism promotes efficiency, socialism focuses on equality and solidarity, a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor and the creation and maintenance of a level playing field”
Equality excludes the whole thing from the outset ( developing ). It would ultimately end in unequality.
That’s why it would have to be ( now it’s getting funny ) socialist capitalism.
Edit: State capitalism e.g. Scandinavia. Would you now say that the people there are in a bad way?
Please note that there is a distinct difference between socialism and communism. You seem to be describing communism. Within a socialistic system there is still the concept of rich and poor and there is still the ability to create a better life through the effort of development. This specifically is the key distinction between socialism and capitalism.
So what you’re calling “socialist capitalism” turns out (funnily enough) to be just socialism which is in turn a capitalistic communism. :)
Btw, I have listed the reasons why things are currently failing in the West.
It would have to be extremely state-regulated capitalism (because of people like Musk,Bezos,Zuckerberg etc for example).
But above all: taxes! So on the rich. (So that taxes are distributed more fairly and, above all, the working class is relieved. In other words, taxes should go up and not down.
So that knowledge is not poached from friendly countries through low taxes. So that the state itself earns financially, which could ultimately be distributed fairly)
Democracies should be able to protect their own form of government… but they didn’t think about that when they were founded because everyone was happy about the positive outcome. So our democracies are under attack from within. ( So that the far right or far left can’t take over. Or can be destabilized by external influences. )
Above all, America should regulate tech companies more. ( No spying on citizens and such. No mass theft of intellectual property etc )
Tax havens should be prevented, etc( Because it enables tax evasion and other negative effects)
It just needs to be protected from abuse. Private individuals should never have too much money and therefore automatically power. ( Well, we can see the result if it is not protected in America. )
For example, I didn’t say a word about citizens holding power over the state. (Which of course should be the case)
Got it. FCK scandinavia and FCK democracy is your choice. Ok