I don't get it.
Let me ask you a question, is it better to live in a town/city where everyone's basic needs are adequately met, or is it better to have a bunch of people who cant even afford food and shelter?
Its better if prices are low because of competition in the market. Its also better when I am not paying 60% of my income in a super ultra confusing and highly punishing tax system that absolutely insanely fucking sucks especially for cryptocurrency where every transaction has to account for capital gains.
If I had that 35% of my income I would have enough money to pay for the higher prices in the first place even without insurance. I would be able to build some kind of savings and investments as well. More people would be able to build small businesses so they can bring more competition in the market forcing big pharma to have to put up or shut up.
The only reason people cant afford food and shelter right now is because the are held down by socialism in the first place.
I will attempt to outline the difficulty i have understanding your use of the term socialist. Maybe then you can make it clearer for me.
I understand the financial pain much of the world is going through.
I just do not understand why the socialism label being attached to the problem. Here is why, I lived in New Zealand when it was what I think of as socialist (not communist) with a closed economy, full employment, free health care and a reasonable tax structure. Owning your own home was real easy. I can assure you it is nothing like that now lol
Over the last few years we have even seen a rapid increase in homelessness and people begging in the streets just about everywhere! You just never saw that except a few old meth's drinkers (not crystal meth) who lived in the parks around the Cities, the ones I spoke to were ex military guys, but I never saw them begging.
The reason for the decline is that people are living longer and immigration. A socialist structure is designed as a type of ponzi scheme where the first people in tend to fair a lot better. The more humans that come in and are dependent the system the harder it gets to maintain it. This causes a cycle where people will think the only real solution is to increase socialist government programs. Ultimately this causes things to get even worse until things just cannot function anymore.
The ponzi scheme will collapse when the value that citizens provide to society is less than the value needed to maintain the ponzi. All socialist programs like welfare and healthcare are a slow burn towards economic collapse.
Theoretically if the people in charge of maintaining the ponzi are super careful and never make any mistakes then socialism would be vastly superior to other options. The problem is, humans make mistakes and ponzi schemes are merely just a means to an end for profit.
You may find this interesting
Going off the thumbnail the answer is...
Yes, also pretty sure I already saw this.
There is no other option unless we begin setting up some kind of technocracy. But yay that probably will suck too!
Thanks for your reply.
What you are describing does not describe the sequence of events that occurred here. First we had a massive change in our eccanomic structure, we opened up our ecconomy to the outside world.
I still think the socialis label is insufficiant to describe what is going on.
Predatory capitalism seems to describes it better.
Humans are predatory. If you think otherwise I have a super good deal on a bridge I can sell you in Manhattan.