You’re not describing a country with a equitable economic system.

Their instance suggests they’re from the UK

Their instance suggests they’re from the UK

It absolutely would be brilliant

A, reverse A, A, reverse A, etc

On a reread, I realise distribution is a part of “availability”, so i may have misinterpreted earlier. Sorry.

I know they’re made with cheap labour, that’s exactly what I talked about. Well if you weren’t saying socialism couldn’t make them, then whatever. Sorry I misunderstood. But I do think a well planned transition to a worldwide socialist economy could maintain our way of life, and introduce everyone else to it (should they desire)

Didn’t i just explain to you my thought process? I’m not putting words in your mouth, it just seemed that’s what you were getting at. Otherwise the smartphone reference seems totally random

Yeah, definitely far from perfect

…or even good, a lot of the time

You implied that westerners would be much worse off without capitalism, and specifically referred to smartphones, seemed clear to me

We certainly have issues, but intolerance of paedophilia isn’t one of them. I’m happy we see it that way.

And what causes fewer younger people?

Couples not having children.

What causes couples not to have children?

Well, beyond simply not wanting them: economic insecurity. A more equitable economic system would remove that barrier.

This assumes that said smartphones can only feasibly be created the way they currently are, and no other way. Can you genuinely not imagine minerals being mined, electronics assembled, by well paid workers?

Thats not to say the current absurd rate would still be sustainable in such conditions, but i don’t think you can definitively say that losing capitalism would inevitably mean a decrease in living standards. A well managed transition to socialism could maintain much of our luxuries.

You’re forgetting another portion of the calculation: amount of resources, and resource generation rate.

Take food for example. We have, and create, far more food than is needed. If that rate continues, we can theoretically keep pumping out people until the birth rates and food generation rates converge.

The actual problem, as it stands currently, is not the amount of resources, or how quickly we can create them: the problem is how they are distributed.

There is a MASSIVE middle ground between overconsumption and excess consumerism, and actual poverty.

Pretending that any amount of scaling back consumption inevitably leads to mass poverty is intellectually dishonest, or just genuinely stupid.

Which are you?

I have ambitions that, if realised, could generate income, but I don’t currently have enough cash to invest into. Game dev and music, particularly. I’d start a dev studio and actually hire talented artists, for example, so I don’t have to rely on my poor skills. Will it make lots of money? Who knows. But it’s better than sitting on a hoard and living on interest.

Spend all but a reasonable portion on materially, directly improving the world

Then retire on a million

Thats still one of the two parties

Bernie is certainly a diamond in the rough - but don’t ignore that rough.

Actual democracy and collective decision making solves that

The democrats would never welcome communism into their party

Because fully embracing communism would mean disbanding the party