10 ms·

Yeah, most people treat capitalism more like religion than an economic system of choice, especially the disastrous one we have now. A return to the less devast

Yeah, most people treat capitalism more like religion than an economic system of choice, especially the disastrous one we have now. A return to the less devastating Keynesian sort of capitalism won't undo the whole mess though. Alternative digital economies of sharing have shown how there are plenty of other viable models of economic organization. It's time to reevaluate the failed system that brought us here.

kiba 17y ago
Unless we can perform alchemy as if we were gods and as well have access to all the raw materials in the world, scarcity will continues to be a factor in the study of economics. That, and digital economies are only suitable to things with the marginal cost of production of nearly 0 or is 0.
- onreact-com 17y ago
  Yeah, of course, but it's how we deal with scarcity that makes the difference. Currently those who have the most power and sometimes fire power have the scarce resources. They are not divided evenly whatsoever and the countries that harbor them in many cases are poor and and chaotic, think Congo e.g. Now that China decided to limit the exports of many crucial resources and the US ceases to be the most powerful economy many people in the West will discover that the current distribution of resources is not at all satisfying. In the current order most people either starve or live on a minimum while a few people are living lavish and wasteful lives. This type of "economics" can't survive in the long run. Let's just hope id doesn't end in a bloody way. Wasting most resources like we do now is not economical at all and telling people that's it's natural market forces that makes people in Africa starve while we get fat is just plainly naive. It's time to rethink the way of life we live based on the exploitation of the scarce resources and other people.
  - berntb 17y ago
    >>In the current order most people either starve or live on a minimum As a percentage, much fewer is poor for every generation that passes -- and a small percentage starve, today. Go back a few hundred years and almost everyone lived hand-to-mouth. Check Hans Rosling's lectures on TED.com for how much better the present situation is. From what I've read, when a country implements serious capitalism and good governance in the last century, there is no starvation after a generation or two. Ah, never mind. Go to one of the places where they discuss things like this. If you insist on quarreling with just me, post the link and I'll try to find the time to come along -- taking one for the team to help the average HN quality... :-) Edit: I do understand where you're coming from. At day work, they are a bit frustrated at me telling them that Asian ginger candy is the answer to human happiness. (And let's not even think about getting started on editors!) I try to realize that I shouldn't proselytize on the web, people will realize the truth in the end... :-) (By the way, I'm not talking about that garbage Indonesian ginger candy I used to love -- there is some Vietnamese variant that hurts, nam nam...)
    - onreact-com 17y ago
      ">>In the current order most people either starve or live on a minimum As a percentage, much fewer is poor for every generation that passes -- and a small percentage starve, today. Go back a few hundred years and almost everyone lived hand-to-mouth. Check Hans Rosling's lectures on TED.com for how much better the present situation is." That's due to technological progress not because some people hoard the money while others are starving or live in misery or wage slavery. Also around 1 billion people starve today, that's not a small percentage IMHO: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6423774 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6423774 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/3698225/Nearly-1-billion-people-are-starving-UN-food-agency-says.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/3698225... I'm always astounded by the unwillingness of some people to move on and create a better society for all people not just the chosen few. You don't have to wait generations to curb starvation. In Cuba they managed in a decade. That's the issue here: Either we do it on our own accord or one day people will take their fair share by force and that leads to dictatorships. Given the fact that the poor populations grow while more Westernerns die than get born we will soon face a different situation. Once China has taken over for good I can imagine that the US will become stricken by wide spread poverty. So try not to block progress like the auto industry execs who killed the electric car and then had to beg in Washington for tax payer money. The US capitalism has become a state capitalism like in the former Soviet Union already where banks and manufacturing are run by the state. You seem to prefer that instead of some progress.
      - berntb 17y ago
        I recommended checking Rosling's TED talk. Here is the link: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_reveals_new_i... He discusses the trends. The first few minutes are about child mortality, income and changes over the last few centuries. [Edit: Also see from 14 minutes. Hell, see all of it. If you care about the developing world, it is really informative.] >That's due to technological progress Afaik, the industrial revolution needed capitalism. Any references otherwise? But sure, the technology and the scientific method has been invented. Inefficient systems can grind along for a bit, until we in the open world outcompete them. For countries to be rich enough not to have starving, they need capitalism and good governance. >around 1 billion people starve today, that's not a small percentage IMHO: This have the usual idealist problem -- you have to kill people to help them... Let us split that value up, a bit. About a billion is hungry, according to Wikipedia (not the same as starving -- did you fake there?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_suffering_from_undernourishment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage... Let us get some absolute numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#Malnutrition_demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#Malnutrition_demog... Top three: India, 217.05. China, 154.0. Bangladesh, 43.45. That is, 400 millions of that billion. Now, China is a communist country, so the real value is probably higher -- but they are implementing capitalism so the hunger will go away in less than two-three decades (unless the governance is too bad). India will probably solve their own hunger problems if they can get good governance to work. We can ignore India/China, because they (a) can solve their own problems and (b) both have nuclear weapons and would not take kindly to external forced solutions. Bangladesh -- will never solve their hunger problems by themselves. It is generally held to be the most corrupt country on the planet and the politicians steal aid money. You can't solve the problems of Bangladesh without military intervention -- see Iraq, how that goes. Note that with that population density, a Bangladeshi invasion would kill more people than starvation in decades... You have no clue how to organize an intervention to China, India and Bangladesh. And how to sell it, without military intervention. And NO ONE ELSE HAS A CLUE, EITHER. The next two in the "top" list: Congo/Pakistan (with 37.0/35 millions hungry) have civil wars/insurrections. Good luck solving that, without killing more than hunger will, in decades. The rest of the big hunger case is Africa south of the Sahari desert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index#Conflicts_exacerbate_hunger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index#Conflicts_e... "War and violence have been the major causes of widespread poverty and food insecurity in most of the countries with high GHI scores." Well, as I said, you have an Iraq situation if you try to solve those cases... (Tanzania might be a case. It is peaceful and has 16 million hungry, but it has gotten foreign aid by billions and billions since decades. It seems to be either too corrupt or too damaged by the early attempt at socialism... Might be a case where aid might be better used. I don't know enough about Ethiopia, but they have 30+ million hungry... might be fixable. But that and Tanzania is 3% [edit: 5%, didn't add] of your billion.) So, most of the hungry will either be solved by themselves (India, China, Vietnam) with capitalism -- or will need a military intervention to change the governments (and/or stop conflicts which generate the starvation). Especially good luck with Zimbabwe, South Africa would probably start a war with the military intervention needed to get rid of the b-stards in government, that starves their population. And about changing the world system: Consider East Germany. West Germany tried to integrate it and really, really failed. You want to do the same for the whole world? Abolish winter too, please... [Edit: Note that East Germany volunteered, the governments you want to reach are those that won't...] I consider your thesis that hunger could [Edit: fixed word] be solved crushed and killed. I winz. I think you are either a troll or ridiculously naive. Edit: As an additional note: >> You don't have to wait generations to curb starvation. In Cuba they managed in a decade. That's the issue here: Either we do it on our own accord or one day people will take their fair share by force and that leads to dictatorships. First, Cuba is already a dictatorship which locks in its population, so they don't go to better places. Second, people in democracies with good governance don't generally starve (as I noted above). Third, that was according to Cuban statistics (see Soviet statistics from the 1930s...) (To anser the next comment -- Cuba had to lock in their population before 1989 too, when they had both trade partners and lots of aid.) Edit 2: Some parenthese. And as a last note, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation#Hunger_statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation#Hunger_statistics In 1970, 37% of the population in the developing world was "hungry", in 2007 it was 17%. (And as I noted above, the large majority of the remaining are in countries which will solve it themselves -- or the results of military conflicts/dictators. Hard to go in and "fix", both of those cases.) Sigh, i guess I have been trolled but good to answer this whining. Enough.
davidw 17y ago
These sorts of comments are exactly why we flag economics articles here. There are plenty of people here that take exactly the opposite view (or views, depending on the degree to which they take those views) - that markets should be even more open/free/etc... On the other end, there's even some guy who says he's a "venture communist". Economics is something that we can all agree to disagree on in order to talk about what we have in common: hacking and startups.
- onreact-com 17y ago
  I did not say that markets should be less free. Neither are they free nor is it desirable to return to some kind of soviet state capitalism (it was only called communism but the means of production never were it the hands of the workers which is the prerequisite of communism). Nowadays the market is not free at all, it's ruled by a few oligopolies in most industries. You must be blind not to acknowledge that. The creation of corporations was the last nail in the coffin of the free market. A market can only be free where all people can take part in it and not only a few decide who gets the money. Btw.: The abolitionists attempted to abolish wage slavery as well but it's still prevalent. It's also absurd to sever the economics from the business and startups part. Also web programming in open source projects is just pure communism. So just saying we don't talk about economics here is like talking about cars without ever mentioning the engines. Like with cars we have to rethink the way we build engines. With cars it's the hybrid/electric model, with capitalism it's something else. We just can't go on like that. The economy break down has just been postponed. It will happen sooner or later. Ignoring or censoring that fact won't make it disappear. To be honest: The current set up of startups begging a few VCs for money is neither sustainable nor does it make much sense. Just look at most startups. Either they disappear, they get swallowed and more or less left to rot or the VCs fire the founders. Or of course they go bankrupt. Is this what people are working for? I doubt that. I guess sooner or later crowdfunding will take over and VCs will disappear. Maybe sooner than later as the financial system can finally break down any day.
- christofd 17y ago
  No, Economics is very much part of the picture. Economics is not philosophy or religion but optimization under conditions of scarcity. As long as we remain metrics driven there's nothing wrong with talking optimization. My two cents.
berntb 17y ago
You AGAIN?! With all due respect, don't you get tired of being down modded for preaching relig.. politics on HN? If you really can make a good argument for those theories, which shows them to be a serious alternative -- with proof that the failure modes won't kill millions of people -- put them on a web site and put up a link. If you can do that, I promise to vote for it. (Also, you'll probably get the next Nobel for economics.) Edit: Added a ",".
- onreact-com 17y ago
  I'm just commenting on a post about economics/politics. So don't SHOUT at me. Flag it or something if you can't cope with that post. I perfectly conform with the HN system and guidelines and already have more 1000 karma points in around a month I'm actively contributing here. You contribute far less so don't teach me about HN. Also you're very funny. How can I bring you proof that a theory (btw. which one exactly?) can do this or that in future? Time travel? Last but not least, the current system is killing millions. 50k children dying daily so think twice before offending me and suggesting I somehow speak in favor of genocide.
  - berntb 17y ago
    >>How can I bring you proof that a theory (btw. which one exactly?) can do this or that So you don't have an alternative, but are only complaining that the present system isn't perfect and countries do realpolitik? >>the current system is killing millions. 50k children dying daily so think twice before offending me and suggesting I somehow speak in favor of genocide. Which, counted as percentages, is arguably better than ever in history. And is getting better ever decade. [Historically, where I grew up, the child mortality was around 20-30%... and large families.] As you wrote, you don't have an alternative, either. I am all for attempts to try other economic systems, but not inside 10000 km of where I live. Continue writing your political faith then, if it is so important to preach...
    - onreact-com 17y ago
      ">>How can I bring you proof that a theory (btw. which one exactly?) can do this or that So you don't have an alternative, but are only complaining that the present system isn't perfect and countries do realpolitik?" There are plenty of alternatives around, but I don't have to propose alternatives to be able to criticize something. This way you can shut up everybody, but "unfortunately" we have free speech. You don't post from Saudi Arabia or something, do you? Now that you ask: Parecon is a whole system based on participation. It sounds quite feasible. "As you wrote, you don't have an alternative, either." See above. "Which, counted as percentages, is arguably better than ever in history. And is getting better ever decade. [Historically, where I grew up, the child mortality was around 20-30%... and large families.]" Again, that's due to medical and technological progress which does not depend on capitalism. It's the other why around: You have a better healthcare in Cuba than you have in the US that's why US citizens visit Cuba for surgery etc. "I am all for attempts to try other economic systems, but not inside 10000 km of where I live. Continue writing your political faith then, if it is so important to preach..." No, I didn't say there is no alternative and I didn't preach. You preach the gospel of realpolitik where there is no alternative. Are you a fatalist?

kiba 17y ago

Unless we can perform alchemy as if we were gods and as well have access to all the raw materials in the world, scarcity will continues to be a factor in the study of economics. That, and digital economies are only suitable to things with the marginal cost of production of nearly 0 or is 0.

onreact-com 17y ago
Yeah, of course, but it's how we deal with scarcity that makes the difference. Currently those who have the most power and sometimes fire power have the scarce resources. They are not divided evenly whatsoever and the countries that harbor them in many cases are poor and and chaotic, think Congo e.g. Now that China decided to limit the exports of many crucial resources and the US ceases to be the most powerful economy many people in the West will discover that the current distribution of resources is not at all satisfying. In the current order most people either starve or live on a minimum while a few people are living lavish and wasteful lives. This type of "economics" can't survive in the long run. Let's just hope id doesn't end in a bloody way. Wasting most resources like we do now is not economical at all and telling people that's it's natural market forces that makes people in Africa starve while we get fat is just plainly naive. It's time to rethink the way of life we live based on the exploitation of the scarce resources and other people.
- berntb 17y ago
  >>In the current order most people either starve or live on a minimum As a percentage, much fewer is poor for every generation that passes -- and a small percentage starve, today. Go back a few hundred years and almost everyone lived hand-to-mouth. Check Hans Rosling's lectures on TED.com for how much better the present situation is. From what I've read, when a country implements serious capitalism and good governance in the last century, there is no starvation after a generation or two. Ah, never mind. Go to one of the places where they discuss things like this. If you insist on quarreling with just me, post the link and I'll try to find the time to come along -- taking one for the team to help the average HN quality... :-) Edit: I do understand where you're coming from. At day work, they are a bit frustrated at me telling them that Asian ginger candy is the answer to human happiness. (And let's not even think about getting started on editors!) I try to realize that I shouldn't proselytize on the web, people will realize the truth in the end... :-) (By the way, I'm not talking about that garbage Indonesian ginger candy I used to love -- there is some Vietnamese variant that hurts, nam nam...)
  - onreact-com 17y ago
    ">>In the current order most people either starve or live on a minimum As a percentage, much fewer is poor for every generation that passes -- and a small percentage starve, today. Go back a few hundred years and almost everyone lived hand-to-mouth. Check Hans Rosling's lectures on TED.com for how much better the present situation is." That's due to technological progress not because some people hoard the money while others are starving or live in misery or wage slavery. Also around 1 billion people starve today, that's not a small percentage IMHO: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6423774 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6423774 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/3698225/Nearly-1-billion-people-are-starving-UN-food-agency-says.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/3698225... I'm always astounded by the unwillingness of some people to move on and create a better society for all people not just the chosen few. You don't have to wait generations to curb starvation. In Cuba they managed in a decade. That's the issue here: Either we do it on our own accord or one day people will take their fair share by force and that leads to dictatorships. Given the fact that the poor populations grow while more Westernerns die than get born we will soon face a different situation. Once China has taken over for good I can imagine that the US will become stricken by wide spread poverty. So try not to block progress like the auto industry execs who killed the electric car and then had to beg in Washington for tax payer money. The US capitalism has become a state capitalism like in the former Soviet Union already where banks and manufacturing are run by the state. You seem to prefer that instead of some progress.
    - berntb 17y ago
      I recommended checking Rosling's TED talk. Here is the link: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_reveals_new_i... He discusses the trends. The first few minutes are about child mortality, income and changes over the last few centuries. [Edit: Also see from 14 minutes. Hell, see all of it. If you care about the developing world, it is really informative.] >That's due to technological progress Afaik, the industrial revolution needed capitalism. Any references otherwise? But sure, the technology and the scientific method has been invented. Inefficient systems can grind along for a bit, until we in the open world outcompete them. For countries to be rich enough not to have starving, they need capitalism and good governance. >around 1 billion people starve today, that's not a small percentage IMHO: This have the usual idealist problem -- you have to kill people to help them... Let us split that value up, a bit. About a billion is hungry, according to Wikipedia (not the same as starving -- did you fake there?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_suffering_from_undernourishment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage... Let us get some absolute numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#Malnutrition_demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#Malnutrition_demog... Top three: India, 217.05. China, 154.0. Bangladesh, 43.45. That is, 400 millions of that billion. Now, China is a communist country, so the real value is probably higher -- but they are implementing capitalism so the hunger will go away in less than two-three decades (unless the governance is too bad). India will probably solve their own hunger problems if they can get good governance to work. We can ignore India/China, because they (a) can solve their own problems and (b) both have nuclear weapons and would not take kindly to external forced solutions. Bangladesh -- will never solve their hunger problems by themselves. It is generally held to be the most corrupt country on the planet and the politicians steal aid money. You can't solve the problems of Bangladesh without military intervention -- see Iraq, how that goes. Note that with that population density, a Bangladeshi invasion would kill more people than starvation in decades... You have no clue how to organize an intervention to China, India and Bangladesh. And how to sell it, without military intervention. And NO ONE ELSE HAS A CLUE, EITHER. The next two in the "top" list: Congo/Pakistan (with 37.0/35 millions hungry) have civil wars/insurrections. Good luck solving that, without killing more than hunger will, in decades. The rest of the big hunger case is Africa south of the Sahari desert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index#Conflicts_exacerbate_hunger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index#Conflicts_e... "War and violence have been the major causes of widespread poverty and food insecurity in most of the countries with high GHI scores." Well, as I said, you have an Iraq situation if you try to solve those cases... (Tanzania might be a case. It is peaceful and has 16 million hungry, but it has gotten foreign aid by billions and billions since decades. It seems to be either too corrupt or too damaged by the early attempt at socialism... Might be a case where aid might be better used. I don't know enough about Ethiopia, but they have 30+ million hungry... might be fixable. But that and Tanzania is 3% [edit: 5%, didn't add] of your billion.) So, most of the hungry will either be solved by themselves (India, China, Vietnam) with capitalism -- or will need a military intervention to change the governments (and/or stop conflicts which generate the starvation). Especially good luck with Zimbabwe, South Africa would probably start a war with the military intervention needed to get rid of the b-stards in government, that starves their population. And about changing the world system: Consider East Germany. West Germany tried to integrate it and really, really failed. You want to do the same for the whole world? Abolish winter too, please... [Edit: Note that East Germany volunteered, the governments you want to reach are those that won't...] I consider your thesis that hunger could [Edit: fixed word] be solved crushed and killed. I winz. I think you are either a troll or ridiculously naive. Edit: As an additional note: >> You don't have to wait generations to curb starvation. In Cuba they managed in a decade. That's the issue here: Either we do it on our own accord or one day people will take their fair share by force and that leads to dictatorships. First, Cuba is already a dictatorship which locks in its population, so they don't go to better places. Second, people in democracies with good governance don't generally starve (as I noted above). Third, that was according to Cuban statistics (see Soviet statistics from the 1930s...) (To anser the next comment -- Cuba had to lock in their population before 1989 too, when they had both trade partners and lots of aid.) Edit 2: Some parenthese. And as a last note, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation#Hunger_statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation#Hunger_statistics In 1970, 37% of the population in the developing world was "hungry", in 2007 it was 17%. (And as I noted above, the large majority of the remaining are in countries which will solve it themselves -- or the results of military conflicts/dictators. Hard to go in and "fix", both of those cases.) Sigh, i guess I have been trolled but good to answer this whining. Enough.

davidw 17y ago

These sorts of comments are exactly why we flag economics articles here. There are plenty of people here that take exactly the opposite view (or views, depending on the degree to which they take those views) - that markets should be even more open/free/etc... On the other end, there's even some guy who says he's a "venture communist". Economics is something that we can all agree to disagree on in order to talk about what we have in common: hacking and startups.

onreact-com 17y ago
I did not say that markets should be less free. Neither are they free nor is it desirable to return to some kind of soviet state capitalism (it was only called communism but the means of production never were it the hands of the workers which is the prerequisite of communism). Nowadays the market is not free at all, it's ruled by a few oligopolies in most industries. You must be blind not to acknowledge that. The creation of corporations was the last nail in the coffin of the free market. A market can only be free where all people can take part in it and not only a few decide who gets the money. Btw.: The abolitionists attempted to abolish wage slavery as well but it's still prevalent. It's also absurd to sever the economics from the business and startups part. Also web programming in open source projects is just pure communism. So just saying we don't talk about economics here is like talking about cars without ever mentioning the engines. Like with cars we have to rethink the way we build engines. With cars it's the hybrid/electric model, with capitalism it's something else. We just can't go on like that. The economy break down has just been postponed. It will happen sooner or later. Ignoring or censoring that fact won't make it disappear. To be honest: The current set up of startups begging a few VCs for money is neither sustainable nor does it make much sense. Just look at most startups. Either they disappear, they get swallowed and more or less left to rot or the VCs fire the founders. Or of course they go bankrupt. Is this what people are working for? I doubt that. I guess sooner or later crowdfunding will take over and VCs will disappear. Maybe sooner than later as the financial system can finally break down any day.
christofd 17y ago
No, Economics is very much part of the picture. Economics is not philosophy or religion but optimization under conditions of scarcity. As long as we remain metrics driven there's nothing wrong with talking optimization. My two cents.

berntb 17y ago

You AGAIN?! With all due respect, don't you get tired of being down modded for preaching relig.. politics on HN? If you really can make a good argument for those theories, which shows them to be a serious alternative -- with proof that the failure modes won't kill millions of people -- put them on a web site and put up a link. If you can do that, I promise to vote for it. (Also, you'll probably get the next Nobel for economics.) Edit: Added a ",".

onreact-com 17y ago
I'm just commenting on a post about economics/politics. So don't SHOUT at me. Flag it or something if you can't cope with that post. I perfectly conform with the HN system and guidelines and already have more 1000 karma points in around a month I'm actively contributing here. You contribute far less so don't teach me about HN. Also you're very funny. How can I bring you proof that a theory (btw. which one exactly?) can do this or that in future? Time travel? Last but not least, the current system is killing millions. 50k children dying daily so think twice before offending me and suggesting I somehow speak in favor of genocide.
- berntb 17y ago
  >>How can I bring you proof that a theory (btw. which one exactly?) can do this or that So you don't have an alternative, but are only complaining that the present system isn't perfect and countries do realpolitik? >>the current system is killing millions. 50k children dying daily so think twice before offending me and suggesting I somehow speak in favor of genocide. Which, counted as percentages, is arguably better than ever in history. And is getting better ever decade. [Historically, where I grew up, the child mortality was around 20-30%... and large families.] As you wrote, you don't have an alternative, either. I am all for attempts to try other economic systems, but not inside 10000 km of where I live. Continue writing your political faith then, if it is so important to preach...
  - onreact-com 17y ago
    ">>How can I bring you proof that a theory (btw. which one exactly?) can do this or that So you don't have an alternative, but are only complaining that the present system isn't perfect and countries do realpolitik?" There are plenty of alternatives around, but I don't have to propose alternatives to be able to criticize something. This way you can shut up everybody, but "unfortunately" we have free speech. You don't post from Saudi Arabia or something, do you? Now that you ask: Parecon is a whole system based on participation. It sounds quite feasible. "As you wrote, you don't have an alternative, either." See above. "Which, counted as percentages, is arguably better than ever in history. And is getting better ever decade. [Historically, where I grew up, the child mortality was around 20-30%... and large families.]" Again, that's due to medical and technological progress which does not depend on capitalism. It's the other why around: You have a better healthcare in Cuba than you have in the US that's why US citizens visit Cuba for surgery etc. "I am all for attempts to try other economic systems, but not inside 10000 km of where I live. Continue writing your political faith then, if it is so important to preach..." No, I didn't say there is no alternative and I didn't preach. You preach the gospel of realpolitik where there is no alternative. Are you a fatalist?