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?
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?