Oh Noez Communism!

I was talking to Volls yesterday and telling him that if Bill Gates were to suddenly lose half of his wealth, it would not alter the quality of his life in any way. I also said that, that money, given to the people in our country who don't even have the necessities to live, would significantly increase the quality of their lives.

Just for fun, I ran some numbers.

There are approximately 3.5 million homeless people in America (I got this number from a quick google search. It should be relatively accurate but I won't deny that it could be wrong.)

Bill Gates is currently worth approximately $58 billion. Half of this = $29 billion.

$29 billion, divided amongst the 3.5 million homeless people in America, is $8285.71. That, at the very least, is enough to fund a very large amount of public services for the homeless.

However, I'm sure at least a few of the people reading this are the "homeless people are homeless for a reason" sorts. In that case, ignore the information above. Instead, I'll only consider the 1.35 million homeless children.

Dividing $29 billion between 1.35 million children gives $21,481.48 per child.


Just to make it more clear what I'm saying:

$29 billion, HALF of the wealth of a single person, could potentially end a very large portion of homelessness in America, without negatively effecting the life of the person losing it. This is from a SINGLE PERSON! What if you took, say, half of the wealth of every person over $5 billion?

According to Forbes, there are 63 people with $5 billion+ in America. Adding all of this up, you find that the combined wealth of these 63 people is $771.8 billion. Half of that is $385.9 billion. Divided amongst the 3.5 million homeless people in America, that's $110,257.14 PER PERSON. Divided amongst the 1.35 million homeless children, that's $285,851.85 per child.


So why does homelessness still exist? I would guess that it's because the government would never even consider doing anything like what I'm suggesting, since it's a "communistic" idea. Also, while you could probably show numbers to prove that Bill Gates losing half of his wealth would have no negative impact on the rest of his or his family's life, I think it would be hard to convince someone of something like that regardless.

I'd like to note that I don't think Bill Gates or any of these other rich people are necessarily bad people. I don't blame them in any way for not willingly giving half of their wealth away like that. I blame the system, more than anything. I do not agree with the fact that there are people in our country that do not have the bare necessities of life when there are other people in our country that have near-infinitely more than they will ever need.

I would also like to note that I don't believe in the Communist ideal that everyone should have equal amounts of everything. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I think people who work hard should be rewarded, to a point. Not even an unreasonable point; only to the point that there are no other people in our country that are deprived of things that are NEEDED to survive, such as food, shelter, clothing, and such.

I also won't deny the argument that most or some people who are homeless are homeless because of choices they made. In my opinion, this isn't relevant to the point I'm making, but I have no problem admitting that that could be and likely is the case. However, in return to that argument, I would ask, does the fact that someone has made some bad choices in life justify them not having the bare necessities of life?

In my opinion, nobody, not even the lowliest humans on Earth, should be denied these things. There is no reason that things have to stay like they are. I'm not saying that we should start busting down the walls to billionaires' houses and doing insane shit like that, I'm just saying that humans, in general, need to be a bit more compassionate toward their fellow humans.

Sorry for the rant!

I was talking to Volls yesterday and telling him that if Bill Gates were to suddenly lose half of his wealth, it would not alter the quality of his life in any way. I also said that, that money, given to the people in our country who don't even have the necessities to live, would significantly increase the quality of their lives. Just for fun, I ran some numbers. There are approximately 3.5 million homeless people in America (I got this number from a quick google search. It should be relatively accurate but I won't deny that it could be wrong.) Bill Gates is currently worth approximately $58 billion. Half of this = $29 billion. $29 billion, divided amongst the 3.5 million homeless people in America, is $8285.71. That, at the very least, is enough to fund a very large amount of public services for the homeless. However, I'm sure at least a few of the people reading this are the "homeless people are homeless for a reason" sorts. In that case, ignore the information above. Instead, I'll only consider the 1.35 million homeless children. Dividing $29 billion between 1.35 million children gives $21,481.48 per child. Just to make it more clear what I'm saying: $29 billion, HALF of the wealth of a single person, could potentially end a very large portion of homelessness in America, without negatively effecting the life of the person losing it. This is from a SINGLE PERSON! What if you took, say, half of the wealth of every person over $5 billion? According to Forbes, there are 63 people with $5 billion+ in America. Adding all of this up, you find that the combined wealth of these 63 people is $771.8 billion. Half of that is $385.9 billion. Divided amongst the 3.5 million homeless people in America, that's $110,257.14 PER PERSON. Divided amongst the 1.35 million homeless children, that's $285,851.85 per child. So why does homelessness still exist? I would guess that it's because the government would never even consider doing anything like what I'm suggesting, since it's a "communistic" idea. Also, while you could probably show numbers to prove that Bill Gates losing half of his wealth would have no negative impact on the rest of his or his family's life, I think it would be hard to convince someone of something like that regardless. I'd like to note that I don't think Bill Gates or any of these other rich people are necessarily bad people. I don't blame them in any way for not willingly giving half of their wealth away like that. I blame the system, more than anything. I do not agree with the fact that there are people in our country that do not have the bare necessities of life when there are other people in our country that have near-infinitely more than they will ever need. I would also like to note that I don't believe in the Communist ideal that everyone should have equal amounts of everything. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I think people who work hard should be rewarded, to a point. Not even an unreasonable point; only to the point that there are no other people in our country that are deprived of things that are NEEDED to survive, such as food, shelter, clothing, and such. I also won't deny the argument that most or some people who are homeless are homeless because of choices they made. In my opinion, this isn't relevant to the point I'm making, but I have no problem admitting that that could be and likely is the case. However, in return to that argument, I would ask, does the fact that someone has made some bad choices in life justify them not having the bare necessities of life? In my opinion, nobody, not even the lowliest humans on Earth, should be denied these things. There is no reason that things have to stay like they are. I'm not saying that we should start busting down the walls to billionaires' houses and doing insane shit like that, I'm just saying that humans, in general, need to be a bit more compassionate toward their fellow humans. Sorry for the rant!

Are you aware that Karl Max was a Jew, so was Lenin, and approximately 95% of the Communists in both the Bolshevik and Menshevik Parties.

"He approaches the worker, simulates pity with his fate, or even indignation at his lot of misery and poverty, thus gaining his confidence. He takes pains to study all the various real or imaginary hardships of his life-and to arouse his longing for a change in such an existence. With infinite shrewdness he fans the need for social justice, somehow slumbering in every Aryan man, into hatred against those who have been better favored by fortune, and thus gives the struggle for the elimination of social evils a very definite philosophical stamp. He establishes the Marxist doctrine." - Adolf Hitler

Here's the reason why homelessness exists in America:

-That fully three-fourths of America's foreign aid budget is devoted to Israel's security interests is a tribute in considerable measure to the lobbying prowess of AIPAC and the importance of the Jewish community in American politics.

-Today, though barely 2% of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks, and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and most influential single newspaper, the New York Times. In the late 1960s, Jews already constituted 20% of the faculty of elite universities and 40% of the professors of elite law schools; today, these percentages doubtless are higher.

Ironically, in both Communism and Capitalism, everyone else gets poorer, and the Jew gets richer.

Mighty fuck, you're irritating.

In response to the topic, I agree that it wouldn't really affect these rich people all that much to spread some wealth for assistance, however our system doesn't really support that kind of behavior. Even the tax breaks for charitable contributions is limited.

Something like this would most logically be a tax, yet most people wouldn't trust the government in the management of such a thing.

KA, in communism there is very little incentive to work hard. Incentive is why we're more productive and have such a great economy. If we try to institute more socialist systems like Europe then we'll end up more like Europe than we want to be (a stunted growth rate.) There is nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I think you missed the point, WKFF. I think he's wanting to address part of the gap while maintaining the profit motive. You have to admit, our system promotes selfishness and greed at the expense of others.

K_A = You sound like Robin Hood.

"I steal from the rich, and give to the poor!"

Sweden has already solved this problem. Taxes over here are high (33-35%) for low- to mid-income takers, and even higher (68% is the ceiling) for high-income takers. Naturally, people complain about the level of taxes, but the social net ensures that no-one has to be homeless or starving.

Education and health care are government-funded, too.

Just to clarify, I'm hardly even talking about Communism in this thread. What I'm suggesting isn't even communist, it's more socialist than anything.

Also, I was simply pointing out the fact that it's interesting that Bill Gates could lose half of his wealth and it wouldn't change his life in any way at all, yet half of his wealth would greatly change the lives of ~3.5 million people.

Also, someone strange; Bill Gates stepped down from head of Microsoft to focus on charitable work. Bet he read my thread.

Just to clarify, I'm hardly even talking about Communism in this thread. What I'm suggesting isn't even communist, it's more socialist than anything. Also, I was simply pointing out the fact that it's interesting that Bill Gates could lose half of his wealth and it wouldn't change his life in any way at all, yet half of his wealth would greatly change the lives of ~3.5 million people. Also, someone strange; Bill Gates stepped down from head of Microsoft to focus on charitable work. Bet he read my thread.

Why should Bill Gates be the only one to do this though? Btw he does donate a lot of money to people less 'fortunate' than him, and most of that money goes to waste anyways because it ends up in the wrong hands (wonder whose hands those are... hm, let me think..) Oh, and What about 40% of the chosen billionaires? Shouldn't we free the banks from chosen hands as well, or isn't that part of your socialist plan? Also, what's wrong with National Socialism?

I expect an intelligent response, btw.

Bill Gates is donating almost all of his money to charity at his passing. Warren Buffet is also leaving his money to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

If you tax people 68% then there is less profit motivation. We have high corporate taxes, but some of our other income taxes being lower is great for our country. If you look at most of Europe their growth is stunted by quite a lot more than the U.S. . There are quite a few homeless people that deserve it. They're lazy as fuck. And the "free loader" problem will only be amplified by more public works. Unemployment insurance, government sponsored retraining, and other things help with unemployment (frictional and structural). There's also cylical unemployment which is an issue sometimes (like now.) The thing is there's almost always a job if you want one. And some people just don't. Also not all people classified as "homeless" don't have a place to stay.

If you look at most of Europe their growth is stunted by quite a lot more than the U.S. .

Surely you must be referring to girth growth?

I compiled a list of gross domestic product (real) growth rate of 214 countries in the world for you. It is a useful measure of economic development. See if you can find the United States.

(Format: Ranking - Name: GDP (real) growth percentage)


1 - Azerbaijan: 31.0%
2 - Timor-Leste: 24.0%
3 - Macau: 16.6%
4 - Angola: 16.3%
5 - Armenia: 13.7%
6 - Sudan: 12.8%
7 - Equatorial Guinea: 12.7%
8 - Georgia: 12.0%
9 - People's Republic of China: 11.4%
10 - Liechtenstein: 11.0%
11 - Cyprus: 10.6%
12 - Slovakia: 10.40%
13 - Latvia: 10.3%
14 - Anguilla: 10.2%
15 - Ethiopia: 9.8%
16 - India: 9.60%
17 - Kazakhstan: 9.5%
18 - Cambodia: 9.1%
19 - Bhutan: 8.8%
20 - Argentina: 8.70%
21 - Liberia: 8.5%
22 - Vietnam: 8.5%
23 - United Arab Emirates: 8.5%
24 - Mongolia: 8.4%
25 - Venezuela: 8.4%
26 - Russia: 8.1%
27 - Uzbekistan: 8.1%
28 - Lithuania: 8.0%
29 - Panama: 7.8%
30 - Qatar: 7.8%
31 - Afghanistan: 7.5%
32 - Mozambique: 7.5%
33 - Peru: 7.5%
34 - Singapore: 7.4%
35 - Estonia: 7.3%
36 - Philippines: 7.3%
37 - Dominican Republic: 7.2%
38 - Egypt: 7.2%
39 - Tajikistan: 7.2%
40 - Uruguay: 7.20%
41 - Ukraine: 7.10%
42 - Cape Verde: 7.0%
43 - Democratic Republic of the Congo: 7.0%
44 - Gambia: 7.0%
45 - Gibraltar: 7.0%
46 - Laos: 7.0%
47 - Turkmenistan: 7.0%
48 - Belarus: 6.9%
49 - Tanzania: 6.9%
50 - Sierra Leone: 6.8%
51 - Vanuatu: 6.8%
52 - Bahrain: 6.6%
53 - Colombia: 6.5%
54 - Cuba: 6.50%
55 - Poland: 6.5%
56 - Kyrgyzstan: 6.5%
57 - São Tomé and Príncipe: 6.5%
58 - Sri Lanka: 6.50%
59 - Kenya: 6.3%
60 - Madagascar: 6.3%
61 - Pakistan: 6.3%
62 - Tunisia: 6.3%
63 - Niue: 6.2%
64 - Bulgaria: 6.1%
65 - Costa Rica: 6.1%
66 - Indonesia: 6.1%
67 - Nigeria: 6.1%
68 - Bangladesh: 6.0%
69 - Czech Republic: 6.00%
70 - Honduras: 6.0%
71 - Moldova: 6.0%
72 - Montenegro: 6.0%
73 - Rwanda: 6.0%
74 - Saint Kitts and Nevis: 6.0%
75 - Uganda: 6.0%
76 - Romania: 5.9%
77 - Serbia: 5.9%
78 - Ghana: 5.8%
79 - Hong Kong: 5.8%
80 - Seychelles: 5.8%
81 - Trinidad and Tobago: 5.8%
82 - Jordan: 5.7%
83 - Malaysia: 5.7%
84 - Malawi: 5.7%
85 - Croatia: 5.6%
86 - Guatemala: 5.6%
87 - Kuwait: 5.6%
88 - Slovenia: 5.60
89 - Bosnia and Herzegovina: 5.5%
90 - Burundi: 5.5%
91 - Maldives: 5.5%
92 - Mauritius: 5.5%
93 - Palau: 5.5%
94 - Samoa: 5.5%
95 - Brazil: 5.40%
96 - Iran: 5.40%
97 - Libya: 5.4%
98 - Oman: 5.3%
99 - Ireland: 5.3%
100 - Zambia: 5.3%
101 - Chile: 5.2%
102 - Isle of Man: 5.2%
103 - French Polynesia: 5.1%
104 - Israel: 5.1%
105 - Saint Lucia: 5.1%
106 - Suriname: 5.1%
107 - Turkey: 5.1%
108 - Albania: 5.0%
109 - Iraq: 5.0%
110 - Luxembourg: 5.0%
111 - South Africa: 5.0%
112 - Turks and Caicos Islands: 4.9%
113 - Lesotho: 4.8%
114 - South Korea: 4.8%
115 - Botswana: 4.7%
116 - Algeria: 4.6%
117 - Bermuda: 4.6%
118 - Macedonia: 5.10%
119 - San Marino: 4.6%
120 - Senegal: 4.6%
121 - Taiwan: 4.6%
122 - Benin: 4.5%
123 - Gabon: 4.5%
124 - Guyana: 4.5%
125 - Namibia: 4.5%
126 - Niger: 4.5%
127 - Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: 4.4%
128 - Solomon Islands: 4.4%
129 - Mali: 4.3%
130 - Thailand: 4.3%
131 - Burkina Faso: 4.2%
132 - Australia: 4.0%
133 - Barbados: 4.0%
134 - Bolivia: 4.0%
135 - Central African Republic: 4.0%
136 - Paraguay: 4.0%
137 - Papua New Guinea: 4.0%
138 - Finland: 3.9%
139 - Antigua and Barbuda: 3.8%
140 - Spain: 3.8%
141 - Greece: 3.7%
142 - Guinea-Bissau: 3.7%
143 - Andorra: 3.5%
144 - Burma: 3.5%
145 - Haiti: 3.5%
146 - Marshall Islands: 3.5%
147 - Netherlands: 3.50%
148 - Saudi Arabia: 3.50%
149 - Syria: 3.5%
150 - El Salvador: 3.4%
151 - Malta: 3.4%
152 - Sweden: 3.4%
153 - Austria: 3.3%
154 - Cameroon: 3.2%
155 - Djibouti: 3.2%
156 - Dominica: 3.2%
157 - Yemen: 3.2%
158 - Norway: 3.10%
159 - American Samoa: 3.0%
160 - Belize: 3.0%
161 - European Union: 3.0%
162 - Guernsey: 3.0%
163 - Mexico: 3.0%
164 - New Zealand: 3.0%
165 - Nicaragua: 2.9%
166 - United Kingdom: 2.9%
167 - Bahamas: 2.8%
168 - Republic of the Congo: 2.8%
169 - Belgium: 2.7%
170 - Canada: 2.7%
171 - Germany: 2.6%
172 - Somalia: 2.6%
173 - Switzerland: 2.6%
174 - Nepal: 2.5%
175 - Togo: 2.5%
176 - Aruba: 2.4%
177 - Faroe Islands: 2.4%.
178 - Tonga: 2.4%
179 - United States: 2.2%
180 - Morocco: 2.1%
181 - Eritrea: 2.0%
182 - Greenland: 2.0%
183 - United States Virgin Islands: 2.0%
184 - Italy: 1.9%
185 - Japan: 1.9%
186 - Ecuador: 1.8%
187 - France: 1.8%
188 - Iceland: 1.8%
189 - Denmark: 1.7%
190 - Hungary: 1.70%
191 - Portugal: 1.7%
192 - North Korea: 1.6%
193 - Swaziland: 1.6%
194 - Guinea: 1.5%
195 - Jamaica: 1.5%
196 - Mauritania: 1.5%
197 - Côte d'Ivoire: 1.4%
198 - Tuvalu: 1.2%
199 - British Virgin Islands: 1.0%
200 - Netherlands Antilles: 1.0%
201 - Cayman Islands: 0.9%
202 - Grenada: 0.9%
203 - Monaco: 0.9%
204 - Brunei: 0.4%
205 - Federated States of Micronesia: 0.3%
206 - Kiribati: 0.3%
207 - Lebanon: 0.3%
208 - Cook Islands: 0.1%
209 - Comoros: -1.0%
210 - Montserrat: -1.0%
211 - Puerto Rico: -1.2%
212 - Chad: -1.3%
213 - Fiji: -3.1%
214 - Zimbabwe: -6.0%

[1]

If you look at GDP (real) per capita growth rate, the United States ranks better: 106th place out of the 171 countries listed.



What was that you said about stunted growth in "most of Europe"? Let's look at some graphs of currency exchange rates over the past three to five years.[2] European countries versus the United States, of course:

SEK (Swedish Krona) per USD:



GBP per USD:



EUR (Euro) per USD:



CHF (Swiss Franc) per USD:



DKK (Danish Krona) per USD:



Notice a trend? If not, let me spell it out for you:

You fail.

I admit, I made a mistake. It wasn't real GDP growth rates. I misremembered my statistics and it was unemployment rates. Despite the U.S. getting hit pretty pretty hard economically in the past couple years, we're doing alright with Real GDP growth rates. Your little outliers which are doing so doing exceedingly well are mostly lightly populated countries with populations around the size of some of the larger cities in the U.S. Look at your unemployment rates, now think about how the U.S. is on the verge of a recession (if not in one, it's arguable), and then compare it to say, Sweden. Sweden has a 6.1% unemployment rate (in 2007), and the U.S. at that time had a 4.6% unemployment rate (it's now closer to say 5.4% in the horrible situation we're in due to credit market issues and war.)

Second of all, I just want to say -- fuck you, Chruser. I respected you, but if you want to talk down to me then you can suck a big one. You can disagree and call me out, but if you want to be a douche about it you're not even above dirt to me.

U.S.:

GDP - per capita (PPP):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$45,800 (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
2.2% (2007 est.)

Sweden:

GDP - per capita (PPP):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$36,500 (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
2.6% (2007 est.)

Now, the U.S. has over 30 times the population of your country and it's not that far behind on growth. It's also a good chunk ahead on real GDP per capita, despite absorbing hundreds of thousands of penniless, uneducated immigrants annually. Add in the destructive administration of the past 8 years, and our system is performing pretty damn well. It's apples to oranges and we're doing pretty fucking good with all things considered . Your buddies are doing well with growth because they aren't tied up in quagmires and bleeding out debt (which is a reason our currency is devaluing.) They're also more fuel efficient and not as reliant on oil, which is a major determining factor in our economic growth. Neither of those things are due to capitalism itself .

-------------------

Oh yea, I got my info. from CIA.gov

There's a few things going on here besides your wikipedia post which you didn't cite. Let me go grab my textbook written by Huber and look up where I got my facts from. Brb.

Ah yes, sorry for forgetting to cite Wikipedia in my extraordinarily important forum-based university paper.

Ah yes, sorry for forgetting to cite Wikipedia in my extraordinarily important forum-based university paper.

Lol. Although, this entire thread is pretty interesting and well thought out, you lost me at the anti-Semitism considering I'm from a Hebrew background.

When you're telling me I fail, why not go all out?

I was talking to Volls yesterday and telling him that if Bill Gates were to suddenly lose half of his wealth, it would not alter the quality of his life in any way. I also said that, that money, given to the people in our country who don't even have the necessities to live, would significantly increase the quality of their lives. Just for fun, I ran some numbers. There are approximately 3.5 million homeless people in America (I got this number from a quick google search. It should be relatively accurate but I won't deny that it could be wrong.) Bill Gates is currently worth approximately $58 billion. Half of this = $29 billion. $29 billion, divided amongst the 3.5 million homeless people in America, is $8285.71. That, at the very least, is enough to fund a very large amount of public services for the homeless. However, I'm sure at least a few of the people reading this are the "homeless people are homeless for a reason" sorts. In that case, ignore the information above. Instead, I'll only consider the 1.35 million homeless children. Dividing $29 billion between 1.35 million children gives $21,481.48 per child. Just to make it more clear what I'm saying: $29 billion, HALF of the wealth of a single person, could potentially end a very large portion of homelessness in America, without negatively effecting the life of the person losing it. This is from a SINGLE PERSON! What if you took, say, half of the wealth of every person over $5 billion? According to Forbes, there are 63 people with $5 billion+ in America. Adding all of this up, you find that the combined wealth of these 63 people is $771.8 billion. Half of that is $385.9 billion. Divided amongst the 3.5 million homeless people in America, that's $110,257.14 PER PERSON. Divided amongst the 1.35 million homeless children, that's $285,851.85 per child. So why does homelessness still exist? I would guess that it's because the government would never even consider doing anything like what I'm suggesting, since it's a "communistic" idea. Also, while you could probably show numbers to prove that Bill Gates losing half of his wealth would have no negative impact on the rest of his or his family's life, I think it would be hard to convince someone of something like that regardless. I'd like to note that I don't think Bill Gates or any of these other rich people are necessarily bad people. I don't blame them in any way for not willingly giving half of their wealth away like that. I blame the system, more than anything. I do not agree with the fact that there are people in our country that do not have the bare necessities of life when there are other people in our country that have near-infinitely more than they will ever need. I would also like to note that I don't believe in the Communist ideal that everyone should have equal amounts of everything. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I think people who work hard should be rewarded, to a point. Not even an unreasonable point; only to the point that there are no other people in our country that are deprived of things that are NEEDED to survive, such as food, shelter, clothing, and such. I also won't deny the argument that most or some people who are homeless are homeless because of choices they made. In my opinion, this isn't relevant to the point I'm making, but I have no problem admitting that that could be and likely is the case. However, in return to that argument, I would ask, does the fact that someone has made some bad choices in life justify them not having the bare necessities of life? In my opinion, nobody, not even the lowliest humans on Earth, should be denied these things. There is no reason that things have to stay like they are. I'm not saying that we should start busting down the walls to billionaires' houses and doing insane shit like that, I'm just saying that humans, in general, need to be a bit more compassionate toward their fellow humans. Sorry for the rant!

Holy shiz....

America has been going downhill since 1910 btw. You can't compare our GDP to countries where more billionaires go to avoid paying taxes either. But still it's only a matter of time before the Second Great Depression, Civil War, and Revolutionary War Part Two start, imo. That's if ZOG ever takes our rights away too.

When you're telling me I fail, why not go all out?

Has it crossed your mind that "you fail" may have been in reference to the United States rather than to you as a person, governing the fact that the latter alternative would be:

a) Absurd.
b) Argumentum ad hominem?

Now, the U.S. has over 30 times the population of your country and it's not that far behind on growth. It's also a good chunk ahead on real GDP per capita, despite absorbing hundreds of thousands of penniless, uneducated immigrants annually. Add in the destructive administration of the past 8 years, and our system is performing pretty damn well. It's apples to oranges and we're doing pretty fucking good with all things considered . Your buddies are doing well with growth because they aren't tied up in quagmires and bleeding out debt (which is a reason our currency is devaluing.) They're also more fuel efficient and not as reliant on oil, which is a major determining factor in our economic growth. Neither of those things are due to capitalism itself .

Regarding your arguments to why the U.S. is supposedly a better or "economically stonger" place than arbitrary country X which threatens the U.S. with its state of hypothetical betterness, "that's a lot of 'ifs'" comes to mind.

There's a difference between capitalism and administration choices. It's not "ifs", it's the facts. The current administration has been a disaster for us. If it wasn't for their tax cuts we'd be even worse off though.

--------------------------------------------------

There are some socialistic countries that are doing it really well. It's possible. However, I just don't really think it's the right thing for America. Sorry for being so insulting. I misinterpreted your post.

I've always thought of becoming President and running things so that nothing would go wrong. seems to me like most of the problems they cause just to concidered a "hero" president or something.