I’ve been to Cuba. It’s exactly what you’d expect from the wonders of communism. Extreme poverty everywhere. The leaders are wealthy and everyone else is poor.
I’ve been to Cuba. It’s exactly what you’d expect from the wonders of communism. Extreme poverty everywhere. The leaders are wealthy and everyone else is poor.
It’s weird how you’re also describing America.
Poor in Cuba is nothing like poor in America.
I am not a leader, but I am doing pretty well. I don’t know anyone who isn’t doing better than those I saw in Cuba.
Capitalism is the best path to success for the people of a country. Sweden is a perfect example of what capitalism can do.
I disagree.
What really matters is political representation, not so much the system of economic distribution. The former determines the latter in both capitalism and socialism, after all.
A more egalitarian system, regardless of the economic system, will more evenly distribute wealth in a variety of ways. That’s why Sweden can have higher taxes with a broader tax base than the U.S.
The economic system is important. Socialism or communism will always fail. It always has. It always will. It is a failed system out of the box.
K.
I didn’t say the economic system wasn’t important; rather, that political representation matters more.
You’d never know it, but socialism rarely fails on its own (It can and does, though. Don’t intentionally misinterpret me on this point). Matter of fact, isn’t there still a 60+ year embargo against Cuba? And for what? Castro died several years ago.
It always fails on it’s own.
Why does Cuba need America’s capitalist products if capitalism is bad? They don’t.
The Soviet Union failed, Eastern Europe failed, and every Latin country that switched failed or is in the process of failing.
Our embargo is a scapegoat since most of the world trades with Cuba. There are modern cars there, they just are not American cars.
From Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent
That’s the relationship between capitalism and socialism, and has been since its inception.
You will also note that the tax burden is carried by the middle class in Nordic countries and businesses have a lower tax rate.
This is the opposite of what the Democrats push for in their recommendations.
That’s true, and there’s a pretty good reason for that: the obscene wealth of the richest in the U.S. The richest in Sweden don’t have anywhere near $100 billion in net worth, or even $50 billion.
Wealth is irrelevant since we don’t tax wealth. Elon could be broke overnight if Tesla fails. Sweden has billionaires as well. The man who started Ikea was one of the richest men in the world. If Amazon went BK, Bezos would be broke. That is the issue with all your wealth in a single asset of stock. If you don’t like their wealth, we can’t tax it since that is unconstitutional; just don’t buy their products or stock. Encourage your retirement fund not to buy their stock.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ikea-founder-ingvar-kamprad-wealth-family-net-worth-2019-12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish_billionaires_by_net_worth
That’s why it’s relevant, because it’s not taxed.
Nor should it be. Sweden doesn’t tax wealth.
If Bezos went BK, Do you think we should give a refund when his stock goes down in value? Or should be continue to tax it when it’s converted to income like we have always done.
Wealth is always revelant. If the rich hoarding all the wealth, then the rest of us starve/become homeless/lose our possessions/etc.
Stocks should exist in the first place. They only serve to distribute wealth to the rich, and to those who spend their lives making speculative investments (ie producing nothing of value, and siphoning wealth from the economy).