No? I included the Nordics as well. What are you trying to say, here? I used the US Empire as its the dying world hegemon, but use any western European state you like and it’s similar.
It just feels like a “programming is failing” moment to write that in reply to a comment questioning the focus on the US when the comparison was just to capitalist countries.
I mean jeez. There’s other countries out there and we were talking about those beating China. If you feel like the Nordics have poorer safety nets than China or more people living paycheck to paycheck just say that, instead of a reply talking about US for whatever reason…
When you say “top of the world,” the US is the world hegemon with the greatest amount of wealth and plunder. It distributes it very poorly because it’s a dying capitalist empire, of course. Nordic countries are in some ways behind China and in some ways ahead even if they fare better than the US, but that’s because of imperialism still, and not an example of capitalism working. China shows that, despite developing far later than the imperialist west (take your pick on whichever one), it has managed to develop far more quickly and for the benefit of all, rather than an elite few.
Don’t insinuate that I’m a bot. Dehumanization is bad. Either explain what you mean by “best in class” or accept that it’s possible that someone would interpret it as I did.
It’s lashing out more violently, sure, but the global south is actually developing thanks to increased south-south trade and an erosion of western tech monopoly. The rise of China is contributing greatly to this.
I mean preferably you’d pick top ones to compare, so best in class from both systems
The topic was about people living paycheck to paycheck and social safety net… So take top ones in that category from both systems and compare them to find the overall winner.
But that doesn’t make sense, you compare among peers in development timeframes where you can, as well as size and location. Nordic countries tend to have good safety nets, but they also fund them from imperialism, and they’ve been developing for a longer period of time. China isn’t imperialist, and it’s only recently been developing. If you’re trying to compare capitalism and socialism as systems, you have to compare their trajectories and where they’ve come from, not static snapshots.
We’re trying to find the best countries right now. You’ll never find good comparable enough countries anyway, there’s always big meaningful differences that can be argued over endlessly.
Right now there’s capitalist countries beating all the socialist ones at what we’re talking about. Like said, theoretically at some point they will be best than every capitalist country. It’s just not right now.
Socialist countries generally have better safety nets, like China. Even Cuba, poor and sanctioned as it is, takes better care of its poorest than capitalist countries do.
Which is true, and requires analyzing them in context of their peer countries. Imperialist countries have inflated living standards due to taking huge amounts of super-profits from the global south, therefore comparison isn’t going to be even anyways. Comparing Cuba with other Latin American countries makes a lot of sense, trying to grab “the best” of each like history is just a static snapshot and doesn’t matter is horrible for trying to see which is better.
I’m just saying that right now the best of capitalist countries beat the best of the socialist ones, at least if that best example is China (which isn’t great tbh). In theory in the future etc. but like right now.
Why would that make any sense for a kind of comparison between capitalism and socialism? Why not compare peers? And additionally, China does have good quality of life, and again is rapidly improving.
No? I included the Nordics as well. What are you trying to say, here? I used the US Empire as its the dying world hegemon, but use any western European state you like and it’s similar.
I mean jeez. There’s other countries out there and we were talking about those beating China. If you feel like the Nordics have poorer safety nets than China or more people living paycheck to paycheck just say that, instead of a reply talking about US for whatever reason…
When you say “top of the world,” the US is the world hegemon with the greatest amount of wealth and plunder. It distributes it very poorly because it’s a dying capitalist empire, of course. Nordic countries are in some ways behind China and in some ways ahead even if they fare better than the US, but that’s because of imperialism still, and not an example of capitalism working. China shows that, despite developing far later than the imperialist west (take your pick on whichever one), it has managed to develop far more quickly and for the benefit of all, rather than an elite few.
Don’t insinuate that I’m a bot. Dehumanization is bad. Either explain what you mean by “best in class” or accept that it’s possible that someone would interpret it as I did.
Why do you say the US is dying? Seams to be imperialising and monopolising better than ever to me.
It’s lashing out more violently, sure, but the global south is actually developing thanks to increased south-south trade and an erosion of western tech monopoly. The rise of China is contributing greatly to this.
Can you point me towards some resources?
From what I know big tech companies are going incredibly well and achieving lots of growth.
Look at the rates of electrification in the global south, and the sluggish economies in the US and Europe. The AI bubble is just that, a bubble.
What I said:
The topic was about people living paycheck to paycheck and social safety net… So take top ones in that category from both systems and compare them to find the overall winner.
But that doesn’t make sense, you compare among peers in development timeframes where you can, as well as size and location. Nordic countries tend to have good safety nets, but they also fund them from imperialism, and they’ve been developing for a longer period of time. China isn’t imperialist, and it’s only recently been developing. If you’re trying to compare capitalism and socialism as systems, you have to compare their trajectories and where they’ve come from, not static snapshots.
We’re trying to find the best countries right now. You’ll never find good comparable enough countries anyway, there’s always big meaningful differences that can be argued over endlessly.
Right now there’s capitalist countries beating all the socialist ones at what we’re talking about. Like said, theoretically at some point they will be best than every capitalist country. It’s just not right now.
This was the original claim:
Which is true, and requires analyzing them in context of their peer countries. Imperialist countries have inflated living standards due to taking huge amounts of super-profits from the global south, therefore comparison isn’t going to be even anyways. Comparing Cuba with other Latin American countries makes a lot of sense, trying to grab “the best” of each like history is just a static snapshot and doesn’t matter is horrible for trying to see which is better.
I’m just saying that right now the best of capitalist countries beat the best of the socialist ones, at least if that best example is China (which isn’t great tbh). In theory in the future etc. but like right now.
Why would that make any sense for a kind of comparison between capitalism and socialism? Why not compare peers? And additionally, China does have good quality of life, and again is rapidly improving.